ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 06, 2015 at 23:42#25220 likes
I might have expressed my love/perceived firearm fetish too much, which is probably true but it is an ingrained right and out here in Arizona it's very commonplace to carry.
I am a believer in that an armed society, is a polite society and if ever I find myself in need of protection outside of my Rottweiler, that those who are around me will have the ability to act instead of calling for help that too often would arrive to late.
~right or wrong, it is the reality I live in and raise young men in. Both are certified marksman as is NicK. I am the only one that would never pick up a firearm because I believe it would be used against me but that is because I doubt I could psychologically handle, the taking of another's life.
So I suppose you go around insulting people that are carrying guns? 8-)
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 07, 2015 at 01:30#25300 likes
Reply to Sir2u I am very curious as to why the association is made between Americans legally owning firearms and the idea that the gun owner would overreact to anything said about them.
The right of freedom of speech is just as respected as the right to bear arms. It would not only be disingenuous but also hypocritical of an American, to tell others what rights they are entitled to.
About a year ago I met an American who was generally on the left. He thought that the U.S. would be better off with gun control and agreed with lots of the reasoning for it. He also maintained that if the police came to his property to confiscate his guns he would fire at them. It was amazing to me, he was self reflective about it and knew it sounded crazy yet insisted that he'd do it anyway. You can't find people like that in Australia, one of the joys of travelling.
I grew up with guns, definitely did it first. Shot plenty, used to throw knives, axes, and hatchets too, I like axes and hatchets the most, and still enjoy chopping wood. I wouldn't own a gun now. It seems to me, that guns as defense is about fear, and escalation. I fear violent conflicts, and being out gunned, as it were. You have a stick, I need a stick now, you have a sharp one, I need a sharp one now, you have a sword, I need a sword now, a bow, I need that now, a gun, I need one too, a missile, need one of those too -- a nuclear warhead, I need five of those, the escalation continues. Things always continue to escalate until someone takes the risk of deescalating. These dispositions are contagious, and trickle up and down the social hierarchy. I think that deescalating at the personal level is a positive force to overall reduction of violence, with more and more extreme force.
About 1/3 of Americans own guns. In the 1970s it was around 1/2 of the adult population. Lets say there are 200 million adults (there are, roughly). About 65 million people own guns.
About 30,000 people are killed every year by firearms in the USA. The rate varies between 2 or 3 per 100,000 people in New England and the Upper Midwest to around 45 to 50 per 100,000 in the Deep South. 40% of people in Minnesota own guns, and 12% of Massachusetts people own guns. The rate of gun violence is very low in both states. Alabama and Mississippi both have gun ownership rates that are over 50%, and both have high rates of gun deaths. About 50% of North Dakotans own guns, and they have very low rates of gun violence.
The rate of gun deaths isn't very well correlated with gun ownership. Most people who own guns do not kill people. There must be something else that accounts for gun related deaths besides gun ownership. There is.
It's culture. People in some parts of the country (like the Deep South) are much more likely than New Englanders to take justice into their own hands. They are, apparently, more likely to feel insults to their honor, dignity, and so forth than are people in the Upper Midwest. People in the Deep South are more likely to distrust civil authority ("the government" they hiss) than people in New England.
Why?
Differences in religion, ethics, background, social morés, and so forth.
Puritans get a bad rap by a lot of people, but the Puritans considered civil society important, viewed the state as a an appropriate administrator of justice, and expected people to behave civilly and appropriately. Those values spread westward, and were strengthened by the influence of German and Scandinavian Lutheran immigration into the Midwest. More uptight, probably, but we kill far fewer people over trivial matters.
In the Deep South there has been a long standing preference for the Local against the Centralized authority of the state -- even their own state. (Before the civil war, southerns didn't build railroads across state lines for fear of the next state over interfering or benefitting.) They were individualists in a way that New Englanders weren't. Righteousness was a much more personal affair, and subject to personal interpretation. Couple this view of righteousness with suspicion of state authority, and you get a do-it-yourself approach to justice. You also get a more individualized kind of resentment against others. Wrongs must be righted, and if you wronged me, I will personally punish you (by shooting you, quite possibly).
Yes, sober Norwegian Lutherans in the north do occasionally kill each other, but at nothing like the rate the Baptists do down south.
So if all the guns and ammo were to disappear tomorrow, the rate of murder might not change all that much. The white southerners and the black sons of the south living in northern ghettos would continue to kill each other, with knives probably, at the same high rate as they do with guns. At least there would be fewer bystanders killed.
I am very curious as to why the association is made between Americans legally owning firearms and the idea that the gun owner would overreact to anything said about them.
Perhaps because there have been cases in which Americans have done just that. It's obviously not a matter of 'all or none': some do and some don't; some will and some won't. It'd be similarly misguided to assume that they [i]wouldn't[/I] overreact in any situation.
The right of freedom of speech is just as respected as the right to bear arms.
Very doubtful - even in America. How many Americans and American organisations are explicitly anti-free speech compared to those who are explicitly anti-right to bear arms? The latter is not only less respected, it's more frequently and more strongly opposed in places like America and the U.K. - and I hope that that remains so.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff. Unfortunately, as @Bitter Crank alluded to, it's in "honour cultures" like the southern United States, where politeness is highly valued and people are highly armed, that social breaches are more likely to result in deadly violence. So, even if it were the case that an armed society led to a more polite society, if by a more polite society, you mean an honour culture then it's probably not a desirable outcome. You're better off being somewhere where people are generally rude to each other and don't so easily take offence than in a polite environment where conflicts can quickly escalate into the use of deadly force.
(By the way: Welcome PF members! Please leave your weapons at the door before entering.)
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 07, 2015 at 12:51#25750 likes
Reply to Baden Does the "leave your weapon at the door" apply to my puppy? :P
"I am very curious as to why the association is made between Americans legally owning firearms and the idea that the gun owner would overreact to anything said about them."
Because people are human, and untrained people in particular have no business being around me with weapons that can kill me if they're having a bad day with their wife. Furthermore, most people who feel they need guns appear to be very insecure and plugged into the rightwing meme machine which spreads fear about the "other" - meaning usually nonwhites. So they tend to be the very type of people who will shoot somebody over a parking space dispute. Gun culture is a sickness. It should be fought at every level.
Except that gun deaths are nil where nobody owns guns.
That is sort of like saying there are no road deaths where everyone walks: kind of obvious. But they still use knives, fists and other objects to get the job done. If someone is intent on doing harm they will not stop because of lack of a gun.
Skinny Reply to Wosret Skinny teenagers are, in themselves, something of a problem. So are very, very fat ones. Why can't teenagers be "just right". Don't they know about Goldilocks?
All they would need is a pressure cooker and BOOM!! They are easier to buy than guns as well.
I was actually surprised (honestly) that something wasn't done about the pressure cooker menace. I can see where one could probably not board a plane with a pressure cooker under one's arm, but they still sell them. At the best stores, too. You would think Bloomingdales would be more socially responsible. Don't they realize that once thrifty housewives are done canning beans and corn in the summer, they start thinking about blowing up the Homecoming Dance?
Except that gun deaths are nil where nobody owns guns.
Granted. However, it isn't the gun itself that instigates the shootings. Guns, in themselves, once given unnatural symbolic loadings and fetishist values, are a potential problem that all too often slides into an actual problem.
What IS very problematic is the combination of gun ownership and three values:
1. DIY justice
2. Distrust (or hostility) toward the state and civil authorities
3. "Honor-sensitive" personalities and cultural habits that motivate perhaps deadly retaliation for real or imagined insults.
I am opposed to guns for civilians, other than appropriate rifles for hunting deer, pheasant, duck, geese, turkey, and so on -- as long as the hunters eat what they kill. No trophy hunting.
...an armed society, is a polite society and if ever I find myself in need of protection outside of my Rottweiler, that those who are around me will have the ability to act instead of calling for help that too often would arrive to late.
An armed society is cautious, wary, and nervous. If someone in your armed society wants to hurt you, they will simply be more careful, cautious, and wary about approaching their target. Your big vicious Rottweiler? Distractible and or disposable. Present a bitch in heat (assuming your dog is a male), a hunk of raw meat, pepper spray, or a bullet. Maybe you should get a flock of Rotts.
Have you installed proximity detectors, laser circuits, electric perimeter fences, mine fields, infrared cameras (night vision), atomic death rays, or punji stake booby traps? Perhaps these passive defenses (early detection, electrocution, liquidation) would be more effective. Geese make good guard animals, too. They make a lot of noise when strangers approach, plus you could eat them. You wouldn't eat your Rottweiler would you?
Granted, you live on a ranch and are at least somewhat isolated. Some precautions are appropriate. But don't confuse "polite society" with a "cautious, wary, and careful society" of people who also think a polite society is an armed society, and know guns from the inside out.
How many home invasions have there been in your county during the last 5 years?
Reply to Bitter Crank
Could you imagine what would happen if a school kid set off a couple in a school room full of kids? They don't even have to point it at people.
If someone is intent on doing harm they will not stop because of lack of a gun.
A gun makes it a heck of a lot easier.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 08, 2015 at 14:09#27410 likes
I am not sure why the name of this split off thread is what it is because although the idea of "gun control" falls under the topic of 'firearms' it is not what I am trying to define when I say that "an armed society, is a polite society".
Even though they are not my words originally, they describe what I see around me and what my experience has been. Chicago is my hometown where the gun control is about as tight as they come and now I am on a ranch in Arizona, where you can carry a concealed firearm without a permit.
Just because someone carries a firearm does not mean that they are "out of control" or just looking for a reason to fight. It is actually quite the opposite. Those who carry a firearm in Arizona rarely hide it, it's just part of the culture. Twenty years ago it was gun racks on the back window of the trucks, now it is on their side hip for a guy and pouched in the front of the tummy if it is a woman. Unlike Chicago where you have to be suspicious of others because it is hard to judge the unknown. Arizonan's know straight up who is armed and it would be wise to believe that some are still carrying concealed.
That is what it is really about, being "wise" when it comes to living in a society that is likely armed.
First you have to be wise enough to know if you should ever be carrying a gun to begin with. I do believe that if you have a firearm AND don't know how to use it (which most important is to know when to use a firearm) that it will likely be used against you. This is not just a phrase but something I witnessed as a child being used against my single Mom, who had to protect two young children.
If you decide you are capable of carrying a firearm and legally allowed to do so, then it becomes a part of your level of defenses not another tool to use in dealing with assholes who have an attitude. The people that carry a firearm are very aware of their surroundings and those of us who don't carry are not just more aware of the people who are openly armed but are counting on them to take action, IF action were to become necessary to protect his/her family lives and those lives around them. Whether it is the lady at the next ranch over being armed or two out of six people in line at the gas station, it's all the same. You are more aware, you are more polite, you hold down your ruckus if your drunk and in general you are just more likely to watch how you behave in public.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff If an armed society is a polite society then the implication is that if you're impolite you're likely to be shot. Doesn't that strike you as absurd? Do you really think that the type of people who will shoot another for being impolite are the type of people who ought to be allowed guns? These are the very people who shouldn't be allowed them.
It's a little weird with these thread creations. I thought this conversation was one of those fooling around, not taking it too seriously ones.
I have never been in a situation where 'action' was necessary. The whole idea is pretty bizarre to me. I've never had the thought 'I wish someone here was carrying a gun'. My folks had their house burgled a few years ago. My mum came home to find the intruder inside. The intruder grabbed a screwdriver and threatened her from across the room not to do anything, so she ran out of the house. As traumatizing as that was I'm pretty happy that the most dangerous weapon involved was a screwdriver. Also happy that my mum was non armed, the idea of shooting the guy would be completely messed up. I actually felt a bit sorry for him, he got more than an extra year in prison for the assault charges. Just panicking and grabbing a screwdriver will get you that much jail time even if you don't intend to use it.
A gun, especially a hand gun one can carry on one's person--concealed or displayed openly--is IN ITSELF a powerful influence coloring one's view of the world. So is the rifle in the pickup.
Things are messages. Condoms are about sex, precautions, and protection. Running shoes are about fitness (actual or wishful thinking); a phone is about connectedness; a clock is about management (self or otherwise); a car is about freedom and maturity for a teenager.
The way our local culture interprets objects makes a difference. Clearly Rhode Islanders interpret guns differently than people do in Alaska. Gay guys who insist on barebacking (no condom) are interpreting sex, risk, and life much differently than condom users. People who can turn a cell phone off interpret connection differently than people who drive into concrete walls while texting.
I'm pretty happy that people on the forum can't reach through the screen and stab each other with some kind of knife emoticon. There's a small chance it would make us more polite but it would drastically increase the chances of being stabbed.
Tiff: Arizona is in the high side of gun ownership and gun deaths, but not an outlier. Wouldn't you rather live in a state with outlier stats like Hawaii or Rhode Island (rather than Alaska or Louisiana)?
To judge by how many assholes live around here in spite of open carry. . . ;)
No, I don't think so. I also don't particularly like the implication of said phrase. A polite society that I'd want to live in has nothing to do with violence, but with compassion and respect.
Though I still like firearms. I've been shooting since I was 8, so I just don't have any sort of averse feelings attached to weapons. Weapons are killing machines. I suppose I just don't see the world in a way where I think we are actually beyond killing. It's in that frame that I think of weapons. I much prefer having the reality of our violent lives closer to home -- so that the question of violence is not a bar conversation and an identity to project, but a serious action that we take ownership over, or disavow. As it is state-sponsored violence is a reality that few countries can say they don't participate in. Especially in the United States, for what that's worth. If it is killing and massacres that we are concerned with, I'd start with talking about the military.
Plus, I am a leftist. And I'm not particularly keen on letting just the right-wing crazies own firearms. I'd much prefer reasonable folk who are averse to violence than those who fetishize violence as a means to manhood own weapons.
The most important factor is what the guns are around for, what their primary function is.
- If in a community the vast majority of gunowners either hunt or have shooting as a hobby/sport, or there are so much possibly dangerous wild animals (bears) that one ought to have a rifle when wandering in the wilderness, gunownership isn't a symptom of societal problems.
- If people have guns in their homes because they belong to the country's militia or are reservists (like in Switzerland), gun ownership isn't a symptom of societal problems.
- If people first and foremost own guns to protect themselves from criminals, it is a sign of deep societal problems. The need to have a gun to defend one's home tells a lot about the community itself, about the social cohesion and economic well being of everybody in the society. And basically how safe the community actually is.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 09, 2015 at 11:34#27780 likes
Reply to shmik "About a year ago I met an American who was generally on the left. He thought that the U.S. would be better off with gun control and agreed with lots of the reasoning for it. He also maintained that if the police came to his property to confiscate his guns he would fire at them. It was amazing to me, he was self reflective about it and knew it sounded crazy yet insisted that he'd do it anyway. You can't find people like that in Australia, one of the joys of travelling."
The American you met does not stand alone in his attitude that he has a right to keep his firearms and would object if there was a government initiated confiscation. One of the reasons that many American's own firearms is to defend themselves against the very government that would feel entitled to such a confiscation. In a much older thread at another place, I asked whom around the world, would believe an American's plea for help, if our government turned on US, it's citizens AND help. The answer to my question was stunning as the ONLY forum member, in a sea of represented countries, that said would help was from Canada (maybe ssu, I would have to look back) and that was in the form of medical support and maybe refuge for American's wanting to flee the USA.
Scary freakin scenario for sure, when your government has been "helping" other countries the world over and NO one would come over to help the USA citizens fight it's own government.
Scary freakin scenario for sure, when your government has been "helping" other countries the world over and NO one would come over to help the USA citizens fight it's own government.
Your government hasn't helped anyone except itself. You're not spending trillions of dollars in weaponry to help anyone because all that buys you is death.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff
The Australian government would help. We love helping your government and following it into war. Also it would be our honor to help your government to bring democracy and freedom to its citizens.
One of the reasons that many American's own firearms is to defend themselves against the very government that would feel entitled to such a confiscation. In a much older thread at another place, I asked whom around the world, would believe an American's plea for help, if our government turned on US, it's citizens AND help. The answer to my question was stunning as the ONLY forum member, in a sea of represented countries, that said would help was from Canada (maybe ssu, I would have to look back) and that was in the form of medical support and maybe refuge for American's wanting to flee the USA.
The lack of support is probably due at least in part to incredulity about the likelihood of any such eventuality. Think of what would have to happen for the stated scenario to transpire: Your leaders would have to cook up an essentially suicidal plan and then convince the entire security apparatus from generals down to soldiers on the ground to accept it and put it into operation. There would have to be an outbreak of simultaneous and sustained mass insanity among the government and its security forces for any such assault to take place. There's just no way it could get off the ground even if someone at the top was crazy enough to suggest it. The fact is that your government and your security forces are made up of real people who are on balance no less irrational than the population as a whole. So, the proposed scenario of an assault by the government on its people is as fanciful as a mass assault by American citizens on the government and its institutions. The only caveat I would add is that if there were some earth shattering event such as a nuclear war, a meteor strike, or some severe climactic disaster, the normal rules wouldn't apply. But that's hardly a basis for opposing policy changes that could save lives now.
(As an aside, this debate is a bit one-sided. Anyone else besides Tiff want to put the opposing view?)
Reply to Baden I tried to aim for a middle-of-the-road. I generally am not interested in gun control, but I certainly don't think that gun-culture, or the particular phrase, are worth defending.
EDIT: There's also a general problem with the phrasing "Gun Control" -- as if it were something you can increase or decrease -- which is a necessary result of politicizing any issue, but is problematic in finding any sort of real solution to the problem. This is especially so because laws around guns aren't like taxes or something. There's nothing to increase or decrease, in that sense. Rather, the need for good gun control laws needs to be tailored to the situation.
As it is, the frame is largely around an increase or decrease of gun control, followed by an attack on the culture of guns. But that's not really looking at the laws and finding sensible policies which would result in a better society. In the USA, at least, while one may desire a weapons ban or some such, generally speaking you'll probably just alienate yourself and bolster the NRA by proposing measures like that. An unfortunate result, considering how much far-right politics and the NRA are in bed with one another.
One of the reasons that many American's own firearms is to defend themselves against the very government that would feel entitled to such a confiscation. In a much older thread at another place, I asked whom around the world, would believe an American's plea for help, if our government turned on US, it's citizens AND help. The answer to my question was stunning as the ONLY forum member, in a sea of represented countries, that said would help was from Canada (maybe ssu, I would have to look back) and that was in the form of medical support and maybe refuge for American's wanting to flee the USA.
What exactly are you going to do with your handguns and assault rifles against tanks and planes of the army? I don't think guns will make a difference if the army decides to back the government.
What you need is a country where people feel comfortable ignoring orders. That way your soldiers won't ever turn against you because they're your brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers. Independent and autonomous people require something else than what the army instills in them though.
Reply to Benkei I don't think that this argument holds up too well against the facts. Though the U.S. might have a very advanced military, it is losing the battle in the middle east to armies largely composed of old assault rifles, and so forth. They don't want to admit that, of course, but it's not hard to see that these wars are being lost in purely military terms.
Reply to Moliere They're only losing, or at least not winning, their battles in the Middle East and Afghanistan because they're not willing to take the number of casualties it would be required to win them. And they're not willing to take those casualties because they know doing so would lose them the support of the public. Presumably, if they decided to attack the public, those considerations would be out the window,
CiceronianusNovember 09, 2015 at 17:22#27991 likes
Huh. The title of the thread first, I think.
An armed society has been a very polite society. In those happy days when the code duello applied and gentlemen carried swords and even for some time afterward, into the early 19th century, politeness reigned, at least among the upper classes. When gentlemen were impolite to one another, they were subject to being called out. Once called out, they very politely arranged through seconds (who were also very polite) an encounter with swords or firearms where they politely sought to kill or wound each other.
The samurai during their heyday were also it seems very polite to one another, and impoliteness could lead to sudden death.
That's not to say, though, that an armed society has always been a polite one. There are various myths regarding the Old West, but it seems to be the case that most everyone was armed. Nonetheless, politeness isn't a characteristic normally ascribed to those of its society.
So it seems simplistic to speak of any causal relationship or even correlation between the prevalence of arms and politeness. A concept of honor was probably essential to the establishment of the code duello and the culture of the samurai.
I know many gun owners, and am one myself (I enjoy shooting clays with a shotgun). Those I know who own guns are extremely careful with them. There is a kind of etiquette involved, at least among shotgun owners and users, the purpose of which is to assure the firearm is unloaded and not pointing at anyone until it is to be used, safely. So I think there are many responsible gun owners.
The fetishistic regard for the Second Amendment we see here bewilders me, though, as does the very dubious, even bizarre, belief that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government which is intent on taking away our guns, which seems to be a part of that regard.
The fact remains, though, that guns are too easily available to those with the intent or the proclivity to use them to do harm to others. Gun control is therefore a necessity. The only issue should be what the extent of that control should be, and that should not be an issue we should allow to be influenced by the gun shills who currently comprise the leadership of the NRA and have the capacity to corrupt our legislators. Their purpose is merely to sell as many guns as they can.
If someone is intent on doing harm they will not stop because of lack of a gun.
I'm not persuaded by the "sufficiently motivated" argument because it posits a somewhat untestable premise. Counterfactuals are pointless and analogies are only as good as the similarity approaches equivalence. It is also foolish to conclude that because there might be sufficiently motivated individuals that we should make it easier for them by allowing access to the efficient tools for harm.
(As an aside, this debate is a bit one-sided. Anyone else besides Tiff want to put the opposing view?)
I contemplated the opposing view but everything I wrote came out indefensible or abhorrent. One view I am sympathetic to is that there are a plurality of reasons for gun ownership ranging from malicious intent to hobby and collection. We want to restrict one end of the spectrum while allowing the other end. Guns as self-defense lead to absurdities and an arms race.
Having a gun is good because it increases your power over medium-sized and large creatures in your environment.
No, having a gun at hand, and having sufficient skill, and some degree of good luck, would do so. Otherwise you could be easily overpowered or at least fail to overpower the other creature/s.
And, like the Australian comedian in the video said, there's a significant probability that one will use that gun on oneself. So, I can go out and buy a gun, and become skilled in how to use it effectively, and be self-satisfied that I'm more powerful than others, and then get depressed and shoot myself in the head. Happy ending.
Reply to Baden I'd say that's too simplistic. The reasons why are complicated. Regardless, though, these and other similar occupations should be sufficient to show that an organized military need not be as advanced as their enemies in order to stand a fighting chance -- that the "tanks and planes" of the U.S. military do not necessitate victory against any other organized force.
Now, do I think Americans would win? At present, I do not. I don't think they have a reason to fight their own military. They're very pro-military and pro-USA. You wouldn't have popular resistance in most cases, today. But that's still different from the argument @Benkei is stating.
Reply to Sapientia Yes, I was just trying to say something in favour of having a gun. I think there are many more bad things about having a gun than good things. But that doesn't alter the good thing about having a gun, although I accept the point that some skill and luck is needed. It's important to be able to separate goods from bads. Taking herion has lots of bads, but it has a clear good as well because of the feeling it gives.
Reply to Baden I agree: We aren't willing to fight the kind of war that might make a difference in the Middle East. Having said what we are not willing to do, let me add that I personally have no idea exactly what kind of war that would be. We fielded a very large army in Vietnam, dropped a hell of a lot of munitions, spent a fortune, lost 50,000 soldiers with many more wounded, and still bombed. Needless to say, the Viet Cong were not fielding especially advanced weaponry.
Handguns, hunting rifles, assault rifles, molotov cocktails, and whatever else might be cooked up, would probably be sufficient for the overthrow of a government, provided that the populace has withdrawn it's consent to be governed (a psychological step, not a legal step, of course.)
I see a lot of people saying that where there are a lot of guns there are a lot of deaths by lead poisoning.
I work in what is supposed to be the most dangerous city in a non war zone. People are getting killed all the time. But I doubt that the cause of the deaths is guns. They used to kill them with machetes before guns became easily available.
People get killed because someone wants to kill them, if there were no guns they would just find another way to do it.
Politeness often falls under the behaviour modifying category of etiquette. Etiquette is distinct from legal obligation and moral obligation where legal obligation is legislated and enforced by a recognized authority, moral obligation is legislated and enforced internally, and etiquette is legislated and enforced as social norms. In other words, etiquette is how one's peers expect one should act. Whereas moral obligation is maintained by a moral motivation (i.e., because it is good) legal obligation and etiquette are maintained through coercion (i.e., deter behaviour by fear of punishment).
Etiquette may align with morality, but it is not necessary for a rule of etiquette to be considered morally required. Politeness can govern amoral behaviour such as the arrangement of utensils on a place setting. Since etiquette is not synonymous with moral obligation, it will not suffice to appeal to an intrinsic or self-evident goodness of etiquette. Etiquette requires some degree of force to ensure that agents abide. The use of firearms is a tool of coercion within a culture to enforce social norms. The social norms vary between cultures, such that gang culture can use firearms to enforce etiquette suitable for the culture's needs.
Reply to Moliere You need actual presence to hold land. The US doesn't commit enough personnel for that.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 11, 2015 at 12:50#29200 likes
Reply to Landru Guide Us Just because we have a right to carry firearms does not mean that anyone can legally carry a firearm. There are a host of people that are prevented from legally owning a firearm, from anyone convicted of a crime, anyone who is addicted to drugs, under the legal age of 18 ect. Responsible, legal firearm owners and carriers are not the kind of people that would use a firearm against their wife over an argument or over a parking space. Responsible armed citizens are aware that despite a desire for a Utopian society, that is not the reality we are living in BUT that does not make gun owners reckless as you suggest.
We had committed considerable resources and held quite a bit of land, in the military sense. Vietnam was another example of a failed occupation/police action. Or do you think that if we had "stayed the course" that we'd be winning now? Were we winning prior to the scale back of troops?
I wouldn't say so. I would say that the Taliban won that fight, and continues to win. The reasons why are numerous and complicated, but it's a fair example of an organized force defeating a more advanced organized force all the same.
Not that that's a tragedy, by my lights. I don't think the US should be in the business of policing the world to spread goodness, etc. etc. It's better to look at it as a loss and cut our losses than to think there's some kind of achievable goal in "fighting terrorism" and continue to dump resources into that goal.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 11, 2015 at 13:05#29220 likes
Reply to Benkei Hmm maybe the USA did learn something from the Korean War. It certainly does seem that if there is to be peace in the middle East, that SOMEONE is going to have to leave an army to keep it safe. Does the EU have enough soldiers to maintain a demilitarized zone? For decades? What happens if the EU separates over time and circumstance?
I told you back in the days of Saddam Hussein, that the NEXT skirmish that breaks out, the USA will not respond to. That we have had enough and need to pick up our marbles and go home.
It is time for another country to be the World Leader and it looks like Putin is trying to fill that vacuum. Good man, yes? :s
Reply to Moliere That doesn't disprove my point. It does illustrate, in my view, the ludicrous idea that you can hold an entire country with 192,000 US soldiers.
192,000 US soldiers would probably be enough to secure Baghdad and some 500 sq. km around it and not much else.
You'll note, that back in the day when people still stole land from each other through war, conquering an entire nation was rather rare, especially on the time scales we're considering here. It's only with the advent of the nation state, that through capitulation this has changed. Now, if you're dealing with a tribal society, that has no allegiance to a central government, the idea of "conquering and holding" Iraq was laughable really. Same with Afghanistan. You can get a few tribes and their territory under your bootheel and that's it.
I told you back in the days of Saddam Hussein, that the NEXT skirmish that breaks out, the USA will not respond to. That we have had enough and need to pick up our marbles and go home.
That doesn't make sense. You started that "skirmish". Or war, as some people fondly refer to it.
Reply to Benkei Hrmm, I dunno. I really couldn't say what it would take to secure such-and-such amount of land or a country at this point. I plead ignorance on that. But I would say that because war is largely political, especially when you are dealing with a guerrilla force, that I'm still convinced that a less advanced force can defeat a more advanced force. It just depends on whether or not you have the populace on your side [and by "on your side" I don't intend any particular method, whether it be fear or inspiration, only that the people of a land are where the fight is at]
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 11, 2015 at 13:41#29340 likes
Reply to Benkei How far back in the past do you want to go in order for the USA to gracefully bow out?
My argument is more or less that the function of victory is not a single variable function where the input of said function is the technological ability to to kill.
I have two lovely books, if that be our preference, titled "150 questions for a Guerrilla", where a General Alberto Bayo -- who helped train Che, though I'm ignorant on the specifics of that -- lays out some basics of Guerrilla warfare for a rank-and-filer, and "FM 31-21" -- an old field manual written by the Army on how to conduct and support (and therefore reverse engineered to combat) guerrilla warfare. Not that this guarantees any sort of victory. But it shows that I'm at least not alone in the opinion that military victory is not solely a function of technological capacity to kill.
Is this what we are disagreeing over? Or are we just disagreeing over the particular example I used?
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff To talk of [i]responsible[/I] gun owners is to miss or evade the point. What about all those irresponsible people that have managed to legally obtain a firearm? And are all of these so-called "responsible gun owners" responsible at all times, indefinitely? Of course not! Otherwise they don't actually exist.
Reply to Sapientia That, I think, is the interesting question. As the laws are now it's no surprise that irresponsible persons obtained firearms.
I think licensing requirements to be a firearm distributor is where policy makers interested in tackling the issue -- rather than pandering to their base -- should target.
CiceronianusNovember 11, 2015 at 15:19#29461 likes
Reply to Benkei Not Reagan. It was the first Roosevelt who started our grand march along the path of imperialism and into what Washington called "foreign entanglements."
Reply to Ciceronianus the White Yay. And though hollowed be their holy names, the founders were responsible for a fair amount of conquest.
Though I suppose you might say they are cleaner, because at least then we actually acquired land for the murder we perpetrated. There was something of a reasonable cause. These are more ideological, and therefore unwinnable, than all that.
My argument is more or less that the function of victory is not a single variable function where the input of said function is the technological ability to to kill.
I have two lovely books, if that be our preference, titled "150 questions for a Guerrilla", where a General Alberto Bayo -- who helped train Che, though I'm ignorant on the specifics of that -- lays out some basics of Guerrilla warfare for a rank-and-filer, and "FM 31-21" -- an old field manual written by the Army on how to conduct and support (and therefore reverse engineered to combat) guerrilla warfare. Not that this guarantees any sort of victory. But it shows that I'm at least not alone in the opinion that military victory is not solely a function of technological capacity to kill.
Is this what we are disagreeing over? Or are we just disagreeing over the particular example I used?
Of course there are many other factors involved but "all things being equal", the more technologically advanced party will win from the other. The problem with the examples given is that the conditions for victory were totally unrealistic. If you want to control a country, you need to hold it. If you want to hold it, you need boots on the ground. Whatever much guerrilla warfare did accomplish in Iraq, it already went wrong because not nearly enough people were committed to holding Iraq.
And in all honesty, I don't think the US can field enough soldiers to occupy it precisely because of the decentralised cultural heritage of the area and the geographic distance between the US and Iraq.
Tactically, guerrilla warfare is difficult to fight against, especially if your condition of victory (strategy) is occupation. If you do want to occupy an area that isn't a nation state (and even then you can screw it up), the concept of timescale would have to radically alter (decades instead of years) and you need to fight for it inch-for-inch, take and hold, and not think you can get it all in one fell swoop by toppling the leaders and occupying a few large cities.
Reply to Benkei Not to be too trite, because I find the topic interesting unto itself -- but it seems that we are in agreement, then. Yes? I wouldn't disagree with what you have said here.
CiceronianusNovember 11, 2015 at 16:01#29581 likes
Reply to Moliere Not the Founders, no. Although Washington fought in what we call the French and Indian War, that was some time before he became a Founder, and the failed American assault on Canada during the Revolutionary War can hardly be called a conquest. Jefferson's "purchase" of the Louisiana territory from Napoleon's France is more properly opportunism than conquest; one might say America benefited from the imperialism of France in that case, as it did from that of England earlier, while it was made up of colonies. Again, though, we can't attribute that imperialism to the Founders.
It's when we get to Jackson that we, as a nation, can be said to have begun our conquest and annihilation of the Native Americans. Jackson was not a Founder. Regardless, I was referring to America's propensity to impose it's power across the seas, not from sea to shining sea, as that seems to have been the focus of the thread.
Reply to Ciceronianus the White Well, those were all the events I was thinking of. And I think you make fair points. Though I tend to think of the revolutionary war as a war of conquest, in addition to the French and Indian war. He may not have been a founder at the time, but it's not an unfair characterization to say that it was a war of conquest. The purchase of the Louisiana territory, while I grant that the massacre came later, was still itself conquest.
But, fair points. There's still a difference to be had in my characterization and Action Jackson. And I am certainly way off topic at this point too ;).
Reply to Benkei In the field of Supply Chain Management there are (I have heard) formulae worked out for how much warehouse space and staff one would need to support x square feet of retail space (like, for a batch of Walmart stores).
I would suppose that somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon somebody must have worked out approximately how many soldiers are needed to control a city of 4 million, and how much materiél will be needed, and so on. True? False? Anybody know?
Just guessing, but it seems that to control Baghdad (about 4 million in 1987) 200,000 troops would not be excessive -- that's 1:20, but if one is dealing with a discombobulated population that doesn't like each other about as much as they don't like the occupier, that would be about right. To control and manage Iraq we would have needed roughly 1.5 million troops, or about 1/10 of what we deployed during WWII.
Clearly a draft wasn't going to fly for Iraq. We were using national guard troops as an expedient alternative to drafting. No disparagement intended, but the national guard system is made up of weekend soldiers who have lots of concurrent commitments elsewhere, like entirely civilian careers, families, etc. Some of the men in the national guard were relatively elderly--again, no insult intended, but these were not 20 year olds in for 2 years and then out. The wear and tear on the multiply re-deployed national guard troops was pretty severe.
CiceronianusNovember 11, 2015 at 17:42#29691 likes
Reply to Moliere Being a lawyer, and getting old, has made me persnickety. Getting old has probably also made me fond of the word "persnickety." I use it as often as I can. "Whippersnapper" too. I like how they sound.
Landru Guide UsNovember 15, 2015 at 19:50#33512 likes
All people are reckless under stress. Stress happens. Therefore people carrying guns are dangerous to me. Guns need to be banned and then those who keep them will be criminals we can put in jail before they kill somebody.
It's pretty sad that in an educated and purportedly developed nation, there is a pervasive feeling that weapons are necessary for safety. I would have hoped a 'civil society' would be precisely the place where it was not necessary to carry weapons. And if you are 'polite' to others out of fear that they might be armed, it hardly counts as real courtesy.
I still don't know how to delete a post. Hit the wrong button. But I do want to say something about this.
My father used to go to bed with a 38 at his bed side, and I know several others who still do. I have nothing against guns for hunting, target practice and for protection, but I do not think machine guns, grenades or other idiotic weapons should be available. I like shotguns, clay pigeons.
There seems to be a left leaning portion of society that condemns guns on the basis of the actions of a few lunatics. At the same time, the right leaning portion of society asks others not to allow refugees into the country for fear that we may be letting in terrorists. In both cases we are judging the whole on the basis of the irrational actions of a minority of participants.
I wonder about how 'polite' society is possible today, we seem to be moving too fast to allow it.
I used to do HIV prevention outreach to high risk populations -- this was back in the late 1980s. The bars and baths were safe from crime; the adult book stores, so so; the streets, questionable; and the parks -- potentially violent, especially at night after the parks were closed (which was when there was action) and I handed out condoms and info (to possibly be read later -- way too dark there to read in the park).
People did occasionally get murdered in the parks--maybe 1, 2 or 3 per decade. One morning (1:30 a.m {+/-) I was sitting on my perch on a rail fence waiting for guys to saunter by. A young guy joined me on the rail. We chatted a bit, and among other things he told me he had a gun on him. I wasn't happy about it, but there was nothing much I could do or say at that point that would decrease any risk to life or limb. Eventually he moved on, and there were no murders there that night. I was mugged on a downtown street by a knife wielding drugged out zombie around 11:30 p.m
I've never owned or carried a gun in even gun-shot risky areas. Did I think I was somehow invincible? Could be, I suppose. I rarely feel particularly threatened, and have learned the hard way that the best approach in strange situations is to act like you belong there. Like, don't stand on a street corner turning in circles trying to figure out where you are. One might as well pin a sign on one's back: MUG ME.
I'm not a fatalist either: I expect things to turn out OK. For a hammer, every problem is a nail. For the armed person, every problem might require shooting. There is quite a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy if one is, or is not, carrying a gun. No gun, fewer people get shot.
Supposing that early morning in the park I had a gun handy and pulled it out, telling the guy to go back the way he came. Having done that, I would know that this now angry person might be waiting for me when I decided to leave the park (only one way out) and stepped onto the sidewalk under bright street lights. Bang bang, maybe. Dead crank.
There seems to be a left leaning portion of society that condemns guns on the basis of the actions of a few lunatics.
The problem is that they're not "lunatics" (well, some are, but countless aren't), and there's not just a few of them, there're loads of them. The one's that are judged to be "lunatics" get treated differently by law than others who've committed a crime (or crimes) involving a firearm.
In both cases we are judging the whole on the basis of the irrational actions of a minority of participants.
Whether or not the objection is based on the actions of a minority of participants becomes far less relevant in light of both the number and frequency of occurrences [I]and[/I] the significance of the detrimental consequences.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 22, 2015 at 15:34#38700 likes
All people are reckless under stress. Stress happens. Therefore people carrying guns are dangerous to me. Guns need to be banned and then those who keep them will be criminals we can put in jail before they kill somebody.
While it is true that stress effects everyone, not everyone becomes "reckless" just because they are an armed citizen. I am not suggesting that everyone is capable of such judgement calls nor am I suggesting that innocent bystanders cannot be at risk but there is a risk ratio to consider.
How many innocent lives do you think one armed attacker could take, in a public place such as a supermarket, if 40 out of 100 private citizens are armed?
Carrying a firearm comes with a great deal of responsibility and judgement calls that sometimes have to be made in a 'split second' and considering the use of a firearm is never an easy one. Yes, some become reckless when stress arrives in a life and death situation but others are capable of channeling that stress into a heightened awareness of what is going on and make those split second decisions and it does save lives, sometimes without firing a shot.
A while back our US Representative for Arizona, Mrs.Gabby Giffords, was speaking at a local supermarket in her state where it is legal to carry a concealed firearm without a permit, when these events played out.
Reading this account illustrates the responsibility that actually has to be applied. "Pray you never have to use it, but be prepared to use it if you have to."
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 22, 2015 at 15:50#38710 likes
I wonder about how 'polite' society is possible today, we seem to be moving too fast to allow it.
That is a very thought provoking statement. I think in some ways the political correctness that was ushered into society to show respect, encouraging politeness, has in a way allowed for people to feel offended by anything that goes against their own thoughts.
Aristotle taught us that it is a mark of an educated mind to entertain the ideas of others without taking them as our own. But it is almost as though the political correctness that was initially meant to include everyone respectively, has now become a convenient caveat to be personally offended, sometimes without notice to the offender.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 22, 2015 at 16:06#38730 likes
People did occasionally get murdered in the parks--maybe 1, 2 or 3 per decade. One morning (1:30 a.m {+/-) I was sitting on my perch on a rail fence waiting for guys to saunter by. A young guy joined me on the rail. We chatted a bit, and among other things he told me he had a gun on him. I wasn't happy about it, but there was nothing much I could do or say at that point that would decrease any risk to life or limb. Eventually he moved on, and there were no murders there that night.
It is interesting to read your feelings about someone sharing something so personal in that he was carrying a firearm and knowing that exact feeling from having gone through it myself. I think our reactions were very common and I think that is how most people do respond.
Supposing that early morning in the park I had a gun handy and pulled it out, telling the guy to go back the way he came. Having done that, I would know that this now angry person might be waiting for me when I decided to leave the park (only one way out) and stepped onto the sidewalk under bright street lights. Bang bang, maybe. Dead crank.
You are quite right in that you might very well have died that night because of one fatal mistake, the one that gives credence to the popular idea that if you have a firearm, it is more likely to be used against you than it will to save you.
The fatal mistake is that you NEVER pull a firearm as a use of intimidation. Period. The ONLY time you EVER pull/display a firearm is if you fully intend on using it because your life or the life of another is in imamate danger.
How many innocent lives do you think one armed attacker could take, in a public place such as a supermarket, if 40 out of 100 private citizens are armed?
And how many innocent lives are at risk and/or are taken as a result of private citizens being armed? This greatly outweighs the benefit of preventing armed attackers from taking as many innocent lives as they otherwise would, so your point, yet again, fails to justify the legal system which allows such private citizens to obtain and carry such weapons in the ways that they do.
Carrying a firearm comes with a great deal of responsibility and judgement calls that sometimes have to be made in a 'split second' and considering the use of a firearm is never an easy one. Yes, some become reckless when stress arrives in a life and death situation but others are capable of channeling that stress into a heightened awareness of what is going on and make those split second decisions and it does save lives, sometimes without firing a shot.
Yes, but the consequences of those bad judgements outweigh the consequences of those good judgements. This is evidenced by statistics. Here in the U.K. we have considerably less gun crime, and it isn't because our private citizens or police force is armed, since it's only special units which are armed, and we have very tight gun control.
A while back our US Representative for Arizona, Mrs.Gabby Giffords, was speaking at a local supermarket in her state where it is legal to carry a concealed firearm without a permit, when these events played out.
Reading this account illustrates the responsibility that actually has to be applied. "Pray you never have to use it, but be prepared to use it if you have to."
Yeh yeh, responsibility [I]has to[/I] or [I]ought to[/I] be applied, but it ain't in countless cases, and that's the problem that you've failed to account for.
I guess your feelings are along the lines of "I wanna gun anyways, despite this massive problem".
I'm not sure why you haven't addressed any of my comments, by the way.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 22, 2015 at 19:17#38810 likes
I'm not sure why you haven't addressed any of my comments, by the way.
I am sorry, Sapientia. Please don't take it personally, as it is not intended that way. I will try to answer you now. Which post did you want me to start with? The first one or the last one?
I am sorry, Sapientia. Please don't take it personally, as it is not intended that way. I will try to answer you now. Which post did you want me to start with? The first one or the last one?
No worries. I didn't take it personally. I just wondered why you hadn't replied. Start wherever you think most appropriate. I don't really mind.
"In both cases we are judging the whole on the basis of the irrational actions of a minority of participants".
— Cavacava
Whether or not the objection is based on the actions of a minority of participants becomes far less relevant in light of both the number and frequency of occurrences and the significance of the detrimental consequences.
--Sapientia
Yes, I agree with this but it does not address the contradiction. The same can be said of the actions of Terrorists, their ideology claims a sacred origin, their killings are what the mediators of their god have said they ought to do. The importance of their ideological view point is "relevant in light of both the number and frequency of occurrences and the significance of the detrimental consequences"
It is an easy step to claim that all of Islam condones violence, and these terrorists are proof that violence is inherent in their faith. It is easy to say that the 'right to carry arms' is the cause of much of the violence we see in the United States, and it is easy to condemn gun owners as perpetrators of this violence.
It is the same sort of value judgement. We tend to judge a ideological group by the actions of its most radical elements. If differentiation is a basic instinctual force in culture, the radical describes the border of what is meant by labeling one a member of a group.
Reply to Cavacava I'm in favour of tighter gun controls in places where I think it'd be of benefit, just as I'm in favour of tighter publication controls in places where I think it'd be of benefit. If that means preventing explicit terrorist ideology from being published and removing it from public places, then so be it. Why not? The ends justify the means.
You said that my response doesn't address the contradiction, but I don't think that there [i]is[/I] a contradiction.
The importance of their ideological view point is "relevant in light of both the number and frequency of occurrences and the significance of the detrimental consequences"
Just to be clear, that's taking my quote out of it's original context, and that's not a true analogy.
It is the same sort of value judgement. We tend to judge an ideological group by the actions of its most radical elements.
If in order to significantly reduce gun crime, tighter controls are required, and if some responsible gun owners miss out as a result, then so be it. That's a price I'm willing to pay.
It's not quite the same with your example of Islam. Guns are weapons designed for harm. Is that true of Islam? Is Islam a religion designed for harm?
We live in the age of progress. Progress has become a secular Ideal. We collectively and individually strive/desire to become richer, healthier, happier, finer people. We see how quickly science has moved, and we desire to advance humanly in a similar manner, with all the trappings that accompany our progress.
This Ideal moves us along, sets a direction which will never end. Keat's says
"Philosophy will clip an Angel’s wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine—
Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made
The tender-person’d Lamia melt into a shade."
The mystery of life is lost in our quest for explanations and along with it any sense of acting beyond the pro-functionary necessity of doing what is expected. As we look straight ahead, we lose what is tangential, off to the side. Politeness is a victim of this view, it becomes a hallow token of how we are expected to act, what we are expected to say. It loses its genuine character, y'all.
Supposing that early morning in the park I had a gun handy and pulled it out, telling the guy to go back the way he came. Having done that, I would know that this now angry person might be waiting for me when I decided to leave the park (only one way out) and stepped onto the sidewalk under bright street lights. Bang bang, maybe. Dead crank.
Well, supposing along with you. Suppose you go into that same park with a gun handy, and ready. You see someone sitting on that rail fence. You go up and sit next to the person start up a conversation and mention that you have a gun at the ready. You note the obvious consternation in the others face, so you shove off and move along.
I do like the drama you invoke, it is kinda funny that your hypothetical climatic end occurs under "bright street lights" and not in the shadows. :)
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 24, 2015 at 13:05#41050 likes
Carrying a firearm comes with a great deal of responsibility and judgement calls that sometimes have to be made in a 'split second' and considering the use of a firearm is never an easy one. Yes, some become reckless when stress arrives in a life and death situation but others are capable of channeling that stress into a heightened awareness of what is going on and make those split second decisions and it does save lives, sometimes without firing a shot." — ArguingWAristotleTiff
[quote=Sapientia] Yes, but the consequences of those bad judgements outweigh the consequences of those good judgements. This is evidenced by statistics. Here in the U.K. we have considerably less gun crime, and it isn't because our private citizens or police force is armed, since it's only special units which are armed, and we have very tight gun control.
Whether or not those bad judgements, outweigh the consequences of the good judgements, all depend upon which side of the firearm you find yourself on. ;)
What works in the U.K. does not work everywhere, nor should you or I expect it to. Hell you can see that even as a Nation of States that have United, each State has it's very own philosophy on what will or won't find that balance between allowing people their constitutional rights to own a firearm and keeping that from being seen as a license to use a firearm recklessly.
As BitterCrank suggested the need to own, not just the right, varies WIDELY from State to State, region to region, of our nation. There is a difference between living in Chicago and never seeing a gun except a long barrel Dove hunter kind of gun and then those in uniform who arrive when trouble breaks out. To Arizona, a Western state where a lot of people enjoy the sport of shooting firearms, both hunting and on the range. I imagine BitterCrank rarely has a Javolina and her babies roaming thru his pasture of horses like I occasionally do. But regardless of the difference in locations, owning a firearm is a respected right and one that we as a State, choose to regulate according to a LOT of factors.
I am trying to make the point in this response, that although the USA is one Nation, we are really a Union of fifty individual States. Firearm control is just one of many threads that weave our individual States together as a Nation. Other stratifying threads include but are not limited to State laws on abortion, DUI levels, right to die, providing sanctuary for illegal immigrants, land control and management, enforcement of international border controls, cannabis use, ect. Each State makes and enforces their own laws as they see fit and some are in direct conflict with what the Federal Law states they must do.
I don't know how many 'special units' the U.K. has but it sounds like it is relative to the number of unarmed private citizens and your unarmed police force. Sapientia, the very idea of an "unarmed police force" is not viable option here in the USA. To have each State agree that their citizens be required to abandon their personal firearms is like trying to have a group of 'thinkers' agree 100% on a single view. It is just not possible, not wanted and each State chooses it's level of firearm control that it already has in place. Which is rarely acknowledged by those who choose to cast judgement on our gun rights, the fact that there ALREADY are laws controlling the ownership of firearms. The difference is that each State has control of it's own 'control' dial.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff I have no problem addressing gun controls in a particular American state, as opposed to the U.S. as a whole. My argument, in essence, remains the same.
Sapientia, the very idea of an "unarmed police force" is not a viable option here in the USA. To have each State agree that their citizens be required to abandon their personal firearms is like trying to have a group of 'thinkers' agree 100% on a single view. It is just not possible, not wanted, and each State chooses it's level of firearm control that it already has in place. Which is rarely acknowledged by those who choose to cast judgement on our gun rights, the fact that there [i]already[/I] are laws controlling the ownership of firearms. The difference is that each State has control of it's own 'control' dial.
I don't agree that it's impossible, but things will stay that way unless there's change. And some things are more important than to depend upon the agreement of a state. If the disagreement of a state prevents justice, then that needs to change. If a state isn't competent enough to turn it's dial in the right direction, then the dial should should be turned for it, and set that way, so that it can't be tampered with so easily.
I believe that there can be progress in the right directon, and I don't think that it's right or productive to just accept the status quo, or worse, actively try to conserve it. It might not be easy, and sacrifices might have to be made, but it's a goal worth pursuing.
One third of Americans own guns; the other two thirds do not. The super-majority (66%) do not have to worry about the government taking their guns away from them. Actually 98% of the the third that own guns don't have to worry about the government either. Unfortunately, they think they do.
The fire under this debate is fueled by the "x" percentage of gun owners whose possession of firearms has the force of a sacrament, and the gun and ammunition manufacturing and sales industry. This industry is against gun control of any kind because it would place a steel ceiling on their growth potential. IF gun control were federal law, 200 million Americans would suddenly not be potential customers. The various manufacturers would have to settle for replacement sales, and very small growth -- mostly in hunting rifles.
Hunting is less popular now than in the previous decades. Vegetarians and PITA can not claim much credit for this. My guess is that easy access to areas where one can hunt available game is less now than in the past. The upper midwest is being overrun by deer, but if you have to fly in from New York City, it's just not convenient. Plus, it can take several outings to bag one.
Maybe about 16% (+/-) of the population (most of the sacramental gun owners) daydream about that glorious day when the government finally shows up on their doorstep to take away their guns (and their porn, drugs, unvaccinated children, unregistered dogs, illegally downloaded Beatles albums, untaxed cigarettes, etc.) and they heroically defend themselves against tanks, black helicopters, ICBMs -- whatever the guv'mint throws at them.
Landru Guide UsNovember 25, 2015 at 03:38#41480 likes
How many innocent lives do you think one armed attacker could take, in a public place such as a supermarket, if 40 out of 100 private citizens are armed?
Wrong question. The question is (a) how much more likely is it that the 40 armed citizens will include a mass murderer intent on a gun massacre? And (b) what is the likelihood that a bunch of armed untrained people will wind up shooting innocent people rather than the shooter?
We know the answer. By having "armed citizens" we have gun massacre after gun massacre. And to think that other armed citizens will prevent it is not absurd.
First, because gun maniacs don't care if they get killed, so they'll have shot dozens of people before anybody turns a gun on them (unless you expect ordinary "armed citizens" to carry loaded cocked guns in their hands at all time). A man intent on killing others can walk up to a person with a holstered gun and blow his brains out before he even knows what's happening. And the idea that armed citizens are going to be constantly ready for an attack is scarier than having them unready. They'll be shooting people by mistake left and right.
And second, more to the point, when real gun violence occurs, untrained ordinary "armed citizens" usually freeze up and do nothing or they shoot an innocent person because gun violence is so disorienting. No untrained person -- and I mean anybody who doesn't have constant military training, day in day out -- can react rationally to a man suddenly pulling out a gun and shooting people down, with blood spurting everywhere.
To claim otherwise is simply magical thinking. We have the studies. Wonderfully, it's called "Killology". It is almost impossible for an untrained person to react in any useful way to a gun massacre. Only a trained soldier can. Anybody who claims otherwise has seen too many Rambo films.
Carrying a firearm comes with a great deal of responsibility and judgement calls that sometimes have to be made in a 'split second' and considering the use of a firearm is never an easy one. Yes, some become reckless when stress arrives in a life and death situation but others are capable of channeling that stress into a heightened awareness of what is going on and make those split second decisions and it does save lives, sometimes without firing a shot.
I disagree with your trust in armed citizens and refuse to let my safety and the safety of my children depend on the judgement of gun nuts -- and that's what armed citizens are: gun nuts. They are insecure and untrustworthy. Almost all of them should be in jail before they harm themselves or others.
What I most despise about the whole gun ownership/ gun legislation issue is the way it is handled, actually universally in the West (both here and there). And that is that gun rules are never, ever discussed or handled at normal circumstances in a normal way as some other legislation might be formed. No, the gun controls are allways rushed in after an ugly incident which has caught the media's attention. The reason is logical, after some attrocity (with guns involved) the majority of the people that are not gun owners and hence the matter doesn't actually matter to them (it's not their property or hobby etc. that is talked about) are quite emotional about the event and prone to accept tighter gun laws. When there isn't an ugly incident in their minds, the majority might not be so open to tighter government control.
So has happened here in Europe after the Paris attacks. Avoid of any serious media scrutiny, the EU is now banning virtually all semiautomatic weapons including, even deactivated ones, and rushing this legislation through on lightning speed. It's not a ban on selling them anymore, but a ban that all weapons now would be confiscated. As an active reservist in my country (who doesn't own any guns myself), I know that this will severely effect the ability for reservists to train either themselves or to train shooting in voluntary reserve training, with reserve organizations or in the courses of the National Defence Training Association of Finland. And pity the 2 000 gun collectors in this small country. Actually only my country Finland and the Czech Republic have complained about this (see article: Finland files reservations about EU semi-automatic firearm ban) with Sweden also complaining about the consequences it will have on hunting (something that Finland worries too).
The reason is simple. Central Europeans don't hunt. Shooting isn't a popular hobby. Nor do the countries have a reservist armies. When a potentially large voting segment doesn't own guns, gun laws can be done the way the anti-gun lobby wants. And implemented when a terrorist strike or similar shooting takes place. Gun owners are seen as gun nuts, as Landru said.
Perhaps for people to understand this, think about that there should be legislation and laws passed on large kitchen knives. Really, it's an important issue:
They are very dangerous and a lot of people are killed by kitchen knives and knives in general. The statistics are likely to be awful. Even Bitter Crank here was assaulted/mugged with a knife. A lot of accidents happen with them too. Hence people should have mandatory training. People who have a criminal record of assault or have severe mental problems or are linked with terrorist groups should not have the ability to buy knives that can easily kill a human being. How should this be implemented? Having a licence. Having regulation. Here's how:
- Official never, ever talk about "kitchen knives" or "knives" but refer only to cold weapons. Knives are cold weapons and to talk about weapons gives the correct attitude towards these lethal objects. The discourse, the words that are used, is important!
- Start with the largest cold weapons that people don't have: swords, machetes and so on. Basically people have a negative view towards machetes or the small switchblades. Once they are banned or regulated, you can start building the legislation.
- Push the cold weapons legislation through when a gruesome murder or manslaughter happens with these cold weapons. Especially if children are killed or maimed intentionally or accidentally, use this to get through the legislation. Show pictures of mutilated people from Rwanda genocide and tell how that was done by cold weapons.
- Attack those who say that this kind of legislation is government interference, nanny-state actions or that the "knives are part of life in the kitchen". Denounce this attitude as ignorant, old fashioned and simply dangerous. People have to understand how dangerous to society cold weapons are.
- Pay some well known chefs to promote the legislation and to show just how easy it's to get this licence and how much it can help in fighting domestic violence and crime ...and terrorism. Also have people interviewed in television commercials that have been attacked by cold weapons and who's story is very sad. Have slogans like "The scars tell the truth... support cold weapon legislation!"
I used to find the rudeness on the old PF very upsetting sometimes. I wonder if Paul had implemented a kind of laser option that shot out of users webcams and blinded them if they were rude, and members could sort of 'shoot' each other, PF would have been a more polite place.
Asking people to give up guns is asking them to give up power. This is difficult for anyone, not just Americans like Tiff, especially if no one else around them is doing the same.
Asking people to give up guns is asking them to give up power. This is difficult for anyone, not just Americans like Tiff, especially if no one else around them is doing the same.
Yes, but like I've said, this should nevertheless be a price that we should be willing to pay for the greater good. My sympathy only goes so far. Those who are unwilling to let go are part of the problem. If there are obstacles in the way of vital progress, then we should be looking at how best to overcome them.
CiceronianusNovember 25, 2015 at 15:56#41650 likes
I doubt that an armed citizen has the ability to shoot accurately in a tense situation let alone in a fire fight. It's no easy thing to use a handgun and hit even a stationary target. A moving target is difficult to shoot consistently even with a scattergun. A moving target shooting at you or people around you will be very hard to hit. Training is required to disable a shooter, and few citizens will bother obtaining it even if it is available.
Truth be told -- in most combat situations training doesn't do much in terms of missing, it just makes you less worse as opposed to actually good. Being shot at sucks, period -- even if you're a crack shot. Additionally there are tactics which aren't necessarily meant to connect to a target, so you have to take that into consideration -- but on the whole most discharges do not hit their target.
An annual breakdown of NYPD “Gunfight” hit-ratio data is differentiated in the table
below.
That's a snippet from the report up there. It shows hit percentage in a firefight, meaning the officer believed his enemy also had a firearm (they don't necessarily have to have a weapon, belief is enough to drop the hit-percentage), with the year for the NYPD. Everything I've looked at tells a similar story. ((One of the many reasons why arming teachers in schools is one of the worst ideas to ever be broached))
CiceronianusNovember 25, 2015 at 19:22#41680 likes
Reply to Moliere Remarkable. I recall something about 9 innocent bystanders being hit by an officer of the NYPD not long ago. Strange how law enforcement on TV and in the movies seem to have little trouble blowing the bad guys away. Can it be we're being misled? Someone I know has a 357 revolver and one day we spent some time shooting at, and mostly missing, an empty plastic gallon milk bottle. I couldn't believe what a bad shot I was. Maybe I'm better than I thought; a frightening prospect.
Landru Guide UsNovember 25, 2015 at 20:55#41740 likes
What I most despise about the whole gun ownership/ gun legislation issue is the way it is handled, actually universally in the West (both here and there). And that is that gun rules are never, ever discussed or handled at normal circumstances in a normal way as some other legislation might be formed. No, the gun controls are allways rushed in after an ugly incident which has caught the media's attention. The reason is logical, after some attrocity (with guns involved) the majority of the people that are not gun owners and hence the matter doesn't actually matter to them (it's not their property or hobby etc. that is talked about) are quite emotional about the event and prone to accept tighter gun laws. When there isn't an ugly incident in their minds, the majority might not be so open to tighter government control.
In the US there's an "ugly incident" about once a week, so this is off base.
Here's a concept: if knives are so effective, let's ban guns and everybody who wants to carry knives can do so (they can do so now). You can feel safe and sound carrying your knife. Frankly, I'm not afraid of a man with a knife for a variety of reasons, mostly because I can run away from him, or hit him over the head with a chair. Not so with guns, which is why guns are the weapon of choice for mass murderers.
But let's be clear, banning guns will not end violent crimes against individuals. People will also find a way to kill cheating husbands, rich aunts and unpleasant neighbors. What it will end (as the UK and Australian bans show) is gun massacres. And gun massacres are crimes against the entirety of society, not against particular individuals. That's reason enough to ban guns.
Landru Guide UsNovember 25, 2015 at 21:01#41750 likes
Truth be told -- in most combat situations training doesn't do much in terms of missing, it just makes you less worse as opposed to actually good. Being shot at sucks, period -- even if you're a crack shot. Additionally there are tactics which aren't necessarily meant to connect to a target, so you have to take that into consideration -- but on the whole most discharges do not hit their target.
"It's really hard to shoot a man, especially if he's shooting back" - Little Bill, Unforgiven.
Yep. The notion that "armed citizens" untrained and unready for a gun fight are going to calmly draw their guns and shoot down bad guys is preposterous. Most will do the natural things - freeze and pee their pants. Some will shoot their foot. Some will confusedly shoot anybody near by.
Studies show that normal people in a gun fight simply are not cognitively capable of calmly doing anything. Only highly trained people (soldiers) and abnormally homicidal people do well. Needless to say, the last thing we need is more psychopaths with guns.
In the US there's an "ugly incident" about once a week, so this is off base.
There isn't an "ugly incident" here about once a week, and there definately isn't a terrorist attack every week, so you remark is off base. But tightening of gun control does happen systematically when there is a media frenzy about something. Those events happen more rarely than once a year or two.
Furthermore, what is the logic that if there is a terrorist attack in France (with actually the terrorists using full automatic weapons that are illegal), then army reservists shouldn't here have the ability to train shooting as they have been able before? If either there is a terrorist strike or someone with severe mental problems makes a bomb attack or goes on a shooting spree, why is it then logical to make training possibilities for reservists more difficult?
And in this country you don't get a permit for any gun for "self defence". The right of self defence is totally different from the American law. If you use a gun for "self defence" it's very likely that you will go to jail. If somebody kills a burglar that has entered your home, that somebody will extremely likely go to jail for "use of excessive force" and simply for "manslaughter". Using a firearm for personal defence here will be seen as use of excessive force. In fact there are a multitude of things that you are not allowed to use for self defence.
Landru Guide Us:Frankly, I'm not afraid of a man with a knife for a variety of reasons, mostly because I can run away from him, or hit him over the head with a chair. Not so with guns, which is why guns are the weapon of choice for mass murderers.
Landru the chairfighter.
An event defined as a genocide that happened in our time only a few years ago, actually, was basically carried out with knives. So mass murder with knives has happened. Besides, with knives far more Americans are killed than with rifles, shotguns and other guns than handguns (see FBI statistics). Only with handguns more people are killed than with knives in the US. So why the carefree attitude against the second most lethal weapons in the US?
Landru Guide UsNovember 25, 2015 at 23:54#41880 likes
There isn't an "ugly incident" here about once a week, and there definately isn't a terrorist attack every week, so you remark is off base. But tightening of gun control does happen systematically when there is a media frenzy about something. Those events happen more rarely than once a year or two.
Yes, there is in fact a mass gun killing about once a week in the US. Sometimes more, sometimes less. But we have mass killings every week. It doesn't have to be a Columbine to be a mass killing.
As to terrorism, it's almost always carried out with guns.
So my offer stands, let's ban guns and you can feel save clinging to your knife. It doesn't bother me, so I'm perplexed why you're trying to argue that I should be more worried about knives than guns. If you're sure knives are so effective, you shouldn't care if we ban guns.
Furthermore, what is the logic that if there is a terrorist attack in France (with actually the terrorists using full automatic weapons that are illegal), then army reservists shouldn't here have the ability to train shooting as they have been able before? If either there is a terrorist strike or someone with severe mental problems makes a bomb attack or goes on a shooting spree, why is it then logical to make training possibilities for reservists more difficult?
Yeah, that's the critical issue: training reservists. Jeez, that's a new low for the gun nut argument.
And in this country you don't get a permit for any gun for "self defence". The right of self defence is totally different from the American law. If you use a gun for "self defence" it's very likely that you will go to jail. If somebody kills a burglar that has entered your home, that somebody will extremely likely go to jail for "use of excessive force" and simply for "manslaughter". Using a firearm for personal defence here will be seen as use of excessive force. In fact there are a multitude of things that you are not allowed to use for self defence.
Great, let's ban guns in the US.
An event defined as a genocide that happened in our time only a few years ago, actually, was basically carried out with knives. So mass murder with knives has happened. Besides, with knives far more Americans are killed than with rifles, shotguns and other guns than handguns (see FBI statistics). Only with handguns more people are killed than with knives in the US. So why the carefree attitude against the second most lethal weapons in the US?
Hey look kids, a non sequitur that has nothing to do with lone killers wrecking havoc on our society!.
Back to the issue. If you think knives are so great, you can keep yours. Let's ban guns and you can cling to your knife for security. Frankly, if somebody attacks a group of people in a theater with a knife, they'd look funny when it wound up sticking out of their ear. But like I say, if you're so convinced knives are so dangerous, you shouldn't mind if we ban guns.
So I say again, banning guns stops gun massacres - the UK and Australian experience proves that. And that's reason enough to ban guns. Those so insecure that they can't go to Starbucks without a weapon, you can cling to a knife.
Yeah, that's the critical issue: training reservists. Jeez, that's a new low for the gun nut argument.
For a country that isn't in NATO, has mandatory conscription and the defence forces' deterrence comes basically from the large reserve force, it's a totally reasonable argument. Totally reasonable when basically every tenth Finnish male is a reservist (and more are in the secondary reserve, at the largest you are talking about 900 000 people out of 5+ million people).
Actually so reasonable that Finland officially had it, the training of reservists, as the main reason why they have problems with the EU's proposal.
I'm wondering just who has the new lows for nut arguments here, because I'm not sure that you are even replying to what I'm writing about.
For a country that isn't in NATO, has mandatory conscription and the defence forces' deterrence comes basically from the large reserve force, it's a totally reasonable argument. Totally reasonable when basically every tenth Finnish male is a reservist (and more are in the secondary reserve, at the largest you are talking about 900 000 people out of 5+ million people).
Actually so reasonable that Finland officially had it, the training of reservists, as the main reason why they have problems with the EU's proposal.
I'm wondering just who has the new lows for nut arguments here, because I'm not sure that you are even replying to what I'm writing about.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't care what Finland does. But if you think you're going to hold off Russia with hand guns, I think you would feel at home in some whacky rightwing militia in the US.
And your point is that "Ban guns and we don't have gun massacres": that some loonie cannot shoot and kill randomly innocent people, because he could buy a gun at the nearest supermarket. And naturally you don't give a damn what other effects a total gun ban would have. Who cares about the gun nuts. Who cares about the technical details, ban them all. Stop gun massacres.
Yet your point actually exactly shows my point: this is the way how gun legislation is discussed and focused. Exactly through "gun massacres". The truth is that these highly publisized tragedies are, as you Landru unintentionally show, the way the whole thing is discussed. Far more realistic debate would actually look at how and where the majority of accidents and lethal use of guns happen. It's been discussed in earlier threads quite well.
But if you think you're going to hold off Russia with hand guns, I think you would feel at home in some whacky rightwing militia in the US.
Strawman Landru. Feel safe with your nuclear deterrence.
The ability to use one's personal weapon is a basic and fundamental ability to any soldier. And there simply aren't enough refresher excersizes given by the armed forces, which the defence minister has acknowledged (statistically a reservist selected to frontline combat troops will be called only once to a refresher excersize after the conscript duty in the 5-10 years he or she is deployed to those frontline units). Voluntary training is important. So apparently by Landru's thinking both the interior minister and the defence minister here are gun nuts and whacky rightwing militia candidates, as the both have firmly objected the EU plan.
Anyway, my point is that gun legislation is far more complex issue, as the Finnish example shows with the EU ban. Bans shouldn't be hastily applied right after a dramatic event with few if any preparations without any thoughts on just what the effects will be at large. Yet this doesn't mean that there shouldn't be restrictions at all on gun ownership. The whole thing is a bit similar on how "anti-terrorism laws" are pushed through also. Right immediately after a terrorist attack without any debate on what kind of effect they will have on personal liberties.
Surely there's a way for Finnish reservists to get sufficient training without relaxing gun controls to the extent that they're as easily obtainable as they are in places like the U.S.A.
Surely there's a way for Finnish reservists to get sufficient training without relaxing gun controls to the extent that they're as easily obtainable as they are in places like the U.S.A.
It's not about relaxing the present gun control, it's about the banning of now legal guns that is the problem here. People would be fine with the current controls. Relaxing gun controls is something I don't recall ever happening. Nobody has ever purposed having similar gun laws here as in the US. Not even the "gun nuts" here.
Besides, Finnish gun controls are far more stricter than anything in the US. Here's a discription of how you get a gun permit here.
First, one simply cannot get a permit for a "military like" semi-automatic rifle (which the EU now wants to ban) as your first gun permit. No way. Likely what will go through is something like a .22 calibre sporting rifle (or pistol). And to get even that one is difficult: If you have any kind of criminal record, anything in your youth even without violent behaviour etc, it's likely you will not get any permit. A handgun permit is obtainable only after 20 years of age and if you can show that you have already practiced shooting for two years. You have to provide evidence for the police of either your hunting or shooting hobby (for example a hunting licence) and provide details just where you are going to practice shooting or hunt. Basically you need to show that you belong to some hunting club or shooting club and have endorsements from these organizations. After this you have to pass a feasability test with 260 questions looking at your suitability, your psychological feasability and your appropriateness to have guns. Any kind of mental problems (or anything similar) will stop you from obtaining a license. Sometimes even being overweight can be looked as a problem... or something as irrational. Here there is much confusion on just what makes a person "feasable" to have a gun permit and what not. The police will interview you twice. Then you have to go and show the actual gun that you have bought to the police. After this you will get a permit for two years or so. If you do something stupid in those two years, you'll lose the gun permit. You have then to apply for a continuation of the permit.
As it's difficult to get these licences, hence one option has been to train shooting in a reservist organization or in the courses National Defence Training Association of Finland (MPK), which provides supplemental military training for all citizens above 18 years. Might sound strange at first, but this comes from the Finnish constitution: the constitution here states that every citizen has the obligation to defend the country. Before this meant that basically any 18 year old Finnish citizen could go to the courses of the National Defence Training Association and get military training and even shoot a full automatic assault rifle of the Finnish army (usually not on full auto). But after a school shooting incident, which didn't have anything to do with the association or this kind of training, this was stopped. Still semi-automatic rifles are still used with courses with reservists. The EU ban will stop any kind of training either individual gun owners, with reservist organizations or with the National Defence Training Association, that basically trains about 34 000 people every year in it's courses, basically the same number or more than the armed forces trains reservists in refresher excersizes.
Here's a video of women (that likely haven't gone to the military, likely many that are thinking about voluntary service) getting training in handling wounded in a course of the defence training association. They are issued with Finnish army assault rifles without magazines (alongside full military gear). Earlier they likely would have had the chance to shoot them using real bullets during the course.
Reply to ssu If the proposal goes through, then was your point not that gun controls ought to then be relaxed in order to avoid the problem of reservists not being sufficiently trained? And if gun controls are already tight enough in Finland, then this isn't even an issue, or at least a different issue to the main issue under discussion.
So if all the guns and ammo were to disappear tomorrow, the rate of murder might not change all that much. The white southerners and the black sons of the south living in northern ghettos would continue to kill each other, with knives probably, at the same high rate as they do with guns. At least there would be fewer bystanders killed.
I agree with much of what you've said here, but I don't know if I'd apply the same cultural influences to everyone in the South. The Celtic culture has been blamed for the southern violence, which was most notable in Appalachia after the Civil War.
It seems a stretch to blame black violence in the north on their southern roots from hundreds of years prior. It's also hard to associate black violence with the Southern Celtic culture because the Celtic culture and southern black culture were not intertwined. The black population was centered in the plantation regions and not in the poor mountain regions where the Celtic culture was. Appalachia is overwhelmingly white and extremely poor (other than the city folk who have bought vacation mountain cabins).
I also have a problem relating gun violence in rural communities with urban violence in cities. The former arises over exaggerated honor and pride and the latter over money and drugs.
But, I do agree that the South is a particularly violent region, which likely has as much to do with historical educational failings, racial disparity, and poverty than anything else. That being said (and I've not looked at the figures), I would suspect that over time the South's numbers will improve because of major population shifts southward.
?ssu If the proposal goes through, then was your point not that gun controls ought to then be relaxed in order to avoid the problem of reservists not being sufficiently trained?
The example here is how gun controls are done: a EU-level ban instituted and to be pushed through in a few weeks with no public discussion. It's not yet law, so it's not about relaxing laws. It's the similar antics how tough "anti-terrorist laws" are put through, that likely don't have much effect on actual counter-terrorism measures, and people find about them only when they are already a law. Here that several countries themselves made it public is the only reason why the ban is known.
And if gun controls are already tight enough in Finland, then this isn't even an issue, or at least a different issue to the main issue under discussion.
Actually it does.
It goes to the real question of just what is an armed society? What's the reason for a society to be armed? To defend against whom? I think it's interesting to view the subject from the international point of view, and not just focus in the US. The US has quite a unique and very different culture starting with the second amendment, and the interesting interpretation of it, it is so totally different from other countries. The US idea starts from the individuals defence, at least nowdays, and not a collective defence. Because there are obvious differences, but also similarities, it's interesting to view other countries (even if I can understand some don't care a damn about other places). For example in Israel the officials/politicians have really thought of easing gun laws to help defend the Jewish community from terrorist attacks (see here.)
Switzerland has a genuine militia system and the government has issued assault rifles to it's reservists to be kept at their home. Earlier they even had ammunition. These Swiss army rifle consist about over half of all weapons that the Swiss people have. And the crime statistics are totally different from the US. So are homicides or even accidents with firearms.
(Carrying rifles in Switzerland, in back without magazines)
(Open carry in the US: rifle in hand, magazine on and finger close to the trigger as patrolling a combat zone...)
Yet have mass shootings happened in Switzerland? Yes. Have they happened here in Finland? Yes, here twice with the two shooters perhaps even knowing each other, both having mental problems and the first one being obsessed with the Columbine shootings. (Before that nothing in history) Yet when deciding on gun laws, should they really be made to prevent something as seldom happening as a mass shooting and even terrorist strikes, which use illegal guns?
The example here is how gun controls are done: a EU-level ban instituted and to be pushed through in a few weeks with no public discussion. It's not yet law, so it's not about relaxing laws. It's the similar antics how tough "anti-terrorist laws" are put through, that likely don't have much effect on actual counter-terrorism measures, and people find about them only when they are already a law. Here that several countries themselves made it public is the only reason why the ban is known.
There was an "if". I asked: if the proposal goes through, then was your point not that gun controls ought to then be relaxed (by having the law reversed/reformed) in order to avoid the problem of reservists not being sufficiently trained? You didn't directly answer my question.
As for [I]how[/I] gun controls are "done", I think whether or not they work, and how well, is more important.
It goes to the real question of just what is an armed society? What's the reason for a society to be armed? To defend against whom?
An armed society is a society that's armed. The following questions are more relevant and interesting, but I was more concerned with whether or not gun controls ought to be tightened in places where the current gun controls are arguably not tight enough. Although I suppose that kind of relates to the sort of questions that you asked above.
Yet have mass shootings happened in Switzerland? Yes. Have they happened here in Finland? Yes, twice with the two shooters perhaps even knowing each other, both having mental problems and the first one being obsessed with the Columbine shootings. Yet when deciding on gun laws, should they really be made to prevent something as seldom happening as a mass shooting and even terrorist strikes, which use illegal guns?
Yes. Preventing mass shootings and terrorist strikes is definitely a goal worth pursuing. Like Landru Guide Us, I'm considerably less sympathetic to the woes of Finnish reservists than I am to those affected by mass shootings and terrorist strikes.
Well, if it went through as now, which basically means that Finland or the Czech Republic or Sweden that have problems with it would be overruled, then Finland could ask for an exception. Because it's very unlikely that the Finnish Parliament would accept to ratify it, as now the administration has been against it in it's now form. Then the EU could object that.
(What has to be understood is that Finland isn't at all being totally against the new EU gun laws rushed now in on the wake of the Paris attacks, but only certain aspects of it. Hence it's not in the position, or it doesn't want, to stop the process altogether. Laws can be different in EU countries.)
I was more concerned with whether or not gun controls ought to be tightened in places where the current gun controls are arguably not tight enough. Although I suppose that kind of relates to the sort of questions that you asked above.
First you should ask what is your intention with tightening the gun controls.
I personally find it a bit confusing to focus on such rare events like mass shootings, because the vast majority of shootings happen in totally different circumstances. Most likely a fatal shooting is a suicide. And if we look at the US, apart from the homicide rate, what I find is more worrisome is the high level of firearm accidents and accidental shootings in the US. That is way over the accident numbers in other countries. Hunting accidents are at a normal level (even with Dick Cheney there), hence the high accident levels simply happen because a lot of people have handguns for their personal defence in the house and guns are loaded. I would consider legislation that handles the actual reality of the most likeliest tragedies and problems and not the few cases of lunatics going on a shooting spree, which has more to do with the media coverage and mental health care system.
And If 1 700 people are murdered in the US using cold weapons (knives etc.) compared to the 6 000 with handguns, then are those 1 700 unimportant? Having legislation on cold weapons, training courses, etc. will definately have some effect to lower the statistics. Training would improve just how people use them (and hence lower accidents). But then are you personally willing to pay for a licence and a training course to buy a new kitchen knife? The reason here, is that kind of legislation would affect everybody, Landru and you, and not only the gun owners. In today's world it's so easy to ban or limit something that hasn't got any effect on your own property.
Like Landru Guide Us, I'm considerably less sympathetic to the woes of Finnish reservists than I am to those affected by mass shootings and terrorist strikes.
Well, I don't live there and what does American gun legislation effect me here in Northern Europe? And why should then terrorist attacks in France or mass shootings in the US have an effect here on training of the military? I think the gun laws should be decided by country-by-country. That's the basic reason for have nations in the first place.
And If we have had here two actually "mass shootings" with combined number of eight deaths and nothing else ever, basically one event of America inspired copycats, both using a .22 handgun (similar type used in Columbine), is then the prevention of that the actual focus of gun legislation? Gun laws were tightened after that (with feasability tests). Yet every fourth household has a legal gun and there are 1,6 million legal guns and only 5 million people. Why then the 20 000 semi-automatic rifles owned by the people or reservist organizations pose after Paris such a mortal threat? Or the thousands of deactivated military rifles hanging as memorabilia on people's walls?
Besides, I view it as a good thing here that the government somehow still trusts it's citizens to take on such a huge role in something like defence and have voluntary military training. It's very rare in our modern world where government or the state is simply viewed just a provider of services through taxes (and debt finance) that is then done by paid workers. Reservists here do have a major role with about 95% of the wartime forces being them and not professional soldiers.
Legislation made in a rush, that hasn't gone the ordinary way through hearings usually ends up being very bad. We already have had even here the influence of the "War on Terror" and "Patriot Act". Because basically now according to legal experts the worst thing ever you can do in Finland, which can give you the most time in jail, isn't a mass murder rampage, but actually giving financial support to terrorist organizations. This kind of hilarious consequence that multiple first degree murder basically you get less jail time than for giving money to a terrorist organization just shows the confusion when these pushed through and not well thought laws.
Landru Guide UsDecember 01, 2015 at 00:43#45010 likes
An armed society is a polite society, as long as there are no parking disputes
Actually I'm sure Ronnie would have refrained from shooting and he regrets what happened here. But I've seen more chaotic and less funny videos of confrontations.
So it is with cold weapons, Landru the Chairfighter.
From exactly the same site that you took the parking dispute gone bad news: Police: Man stabbed to death for taking last piece of chicken. That's what happens when cold weapons are in everybody's reach.
If that were true then you shouldn't mind guns being banned, since you can cling to "cold weapons" just as desperately.
But of course you're talking nonsense. It's really hard to bludgeon or stab a man to death, not to mention several men, and they can always run away (as this guy probably could have if only a knife were involved). And of course most people survive stab wounds. In contrast it's relatively easy to pull a trigger and kill a man . . . or two . . . or three.
So this is another counterfactual and bad faith argument from the gun nut chorus.
By the way, love the chair fighter reference. I can easily beat a guy with a knife if I have a chair. If the guy has a gun, not so much. But continue with your gun porn. It's a disease.
So this is another counterfactual and bad faith argument from the gun nut chorus.
No, just to show how illogical and totally emotional based your argument is.
You are for a total ban on guns, yet you don't see any problem with knives. In fact to even ridicule and belittle what danger they are. And in your totally black and white world anybody pointing at anything else about gun legislation than total ban are gun nuts.
If there's some problems with the regulations, for example for hunters, shooting sport or even training military reservists as here will be, you don't simply care. Who cares, because they are the repulsive gun nuts. You simply fail to understand that somewhere else the discussion about gun legislation isn't as inflamed and as adversarial as in the US between those who are in "for" and are "against". That somewhere else the gun nuts have accepted regulation and basically understand regulation ...and haven't an ideological point coming out of a interpretation of the constitution and act like the NRA. But of course, you don't care at all about that.
Legislation made on an emotional basis without any consultation of those who actually the law effects is simply bad legislation in my view. Yes, lobby groups of gun owners or shooting sport association might find restrictions bad, but at least there should be some rationality. And when the objections to gun restrictions are made by both the interior minister and the defence minister, their argumentation isn't about gun owners rights, really.
Politeness and gun-ownership has nothing to do with each other.
I have come to the conclusion that most, if not all, of society's problems is a result of bad parenting, or a lack of parenting. Being polite has to do with if you were raised to be polite. Whether you were raised to be polite can effect how you interact with others in the future, whether you own a gun or not. If your parents didn't love you enough to teach you to be polite, and you end up owning a gun, then we have problems like we do here in the U.S. where these particular kinds of people end up being impolite with their gun. Most gun-owners are polite, responsible gun owners, not because they own a gun, but because their parents loved them enough to teach them how to interact with other people in a productive way. Impolite people who don't own guns exhibit their impoliteness in other ways (verbal abuse, selfishness, etc.)
Removing all the guns in a society won't solve the impoliteness in a society. I would argue that raising a child is a much bigger responsibility than owning a gun. If we're going to decide who can own a gun or not, shouldn't we be consistent and also decide who can have kids or not?
Landru Guide UsDecember 02, 2015 at 18:03#45950 likes
Legislation made on an emotional basis without any consultation of those who actually the law effects is simply bad legislation in my view. Yes, lobby groups of gun owners or shooting sport association might find restrictions bad, but at least there should be some rationality. And when the objections to gun restrictions are made by both the interior minister and the defence minister, their argumentation isn't about gun owners rights, really.
If you look under "Projection" in the encyclopedia of Psychology, you'll find excerpts of gun nuts claiming gun control advocates are too emotional
Landru Guide UsDecember 02, 2015 at 23:18#46100 likes
Looks like the armed polite people have struck again, killing 14 in California in another gun massacre.
If you look under "Projection" in the encyclopedia of Psychology, you'll find excerpts of gun nuts claiming gun control advocates are too emotional
When any debate about an issue becomes too heated, it usually becomes emotional. At worst, opposing sides will have their own experts with their own statistics that don't simply match. That usually doesn't mean that one or the other is lying about the statistics, but that the statistics are totally differently. And the opposing sides will basically approach the topic as a fight with a religious zeal and belief in their cause to be just. They really aren't there to listen what the other side has to say.
In my view the basic reason for gun legislation to be so heated in the US is that the second amendment has made gun control a far bigger issue for many than just the guns in the US, and hence the gun lobby approaches the issue quite differently as for example here. Especially the Supreme Court decisions have made this a far different thing than basically something to do with the defence of the country (which I suspect the actual idea was with the second amendment).
Now gun control never has been such a hot potatoe in Europe, but for example nuclear power has (which is naturally a different topic).
If we're going to decide who can own a gun or not, shouldn't we be consistent and also decide who can have kids or not?
Guns don't leave you when they are 18-21 years old. ; )
I assume that when people talk here about armed society they think of a society where people carry arms for their personal protection basically against other members of the society. The politeness is then more like prudence or simply or caution. It's common sense not to start picking a fight with somebody who is armed. This kind of caution masked in politeness is naturally present... for instance with diplomats. They usually are really polite people, but that politeness is also prudence. They usually are polite because upsetting personally a representative or a leader of another country can really have disasterous consequences, even if it doesn't mean that the two countries go to war.
If then again the arms of for example to prevent a bear attack in the Wilderness of Alaska, it's a bit different as then the potential threat is totally different and doesn't imply that there is something wrong in the society. And here I have to give an anecdote: Here's a quote from the guide about bears and humans from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources:
You are allowed to carry a gun for protection in state parks. Remember, though, that more people are hurt by the guns they carry than are hurt by bears.
(Pepper sprays are even said to work against Polar bears. I wouldn't try...)
If then the arms of the society are for state's defence purposes for an potential external aggressor, then again it is different. And so it is also when the society is rural and hunting is very common. If on the other hand on class or ethnic group is armed to defend from others in the society, then this society has huge problems. How many firearms there are don't correspond with how much violence there is as there a multitude of factors why some society may have or lack social cohesion and may be violent or peaceful. If there's easy availability to guns and there are problems in the society, sure, there will be more violence than without the guns. And to say the obvious, if their is a necessity to be armed, something is wrong...
I assume that when people talk here about armed society they think of a society where people carry arms for their personal protection basically against other members of the society. The politeness is then more like prudence or simply or caution. It's common sense not to start picking a fight with somebody who is armed.
More gun porn fantasies. As if people so insecure that they need to carry guns to a Starbucks are likely to act "prudently".
ProbablyTrueDecember 03, 2015 at 09:18#46310 likes
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 03, 2015 at 11:54#46340 likes
Reply to Landru Guide Us
You might want to hold your fire, so to speak. The "armed polite society" was most certainly at play in this shooting, you are just choosing to focus on those with an agenda, to harm innocent people using firearms AND explosives in this case.
Where is your call for laws against fireworks where enough explosives can be extracted from to cause mass casualties?
Where is your call for every remote controlled toy car to be destroyed because it was going to be used as tripping device on the explosives?
The firearm is easy for you to rail against because it cannot rail back. How about looking at the people behind the firearms first?
I can't see what you wrote, but you said an armed society is wary and cautious, and indeed, the primary purpose of arms is 'security' - but what does that really mean? One need ask what is feared and why and what underlies this lived sense of personal insecurity. It's a deeply psychological question, because there are those who go about unarmed that, even realising they are in a dangerous world, indeed bulleting along on what amounts to speck of dust in the galaxy, who feel quite secure personally, and hence, have no inclination to arm themselves since there is no immediate real and present threat to their lives.
I merely conclude that people shooting each other is impolite, and there are much less harmful ways to be rude.
Ted Alcorn, the research director for Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit organization that advocates gun control, said the shootings with multiple victims were a tiny subset of everyday gun violence in America. “You have 14 people dead in California, and that’s a horrible tragedy,” he said. “But likely 88 other people died today from gun violence in the United States.”
Ted Alcorn, the research director for Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit organization that advocates gun control, said the shootings with multiple victims were a tiny subset of everyday gun violence in America. “You have 14 people dead in California, and that’s a horrible tragedy,” he said. “But likely 88 other people died today from gun violence in the United States.”
As even this thread shows, those 88 cases aren't actually the one's looked at when one makes gun legislation, but the discussion focuses on the "gun massacres".
The following graph I find interesting. Because to put it simple, there's not actually a direct correlation between gun deaths and gun ownership. The fact is that "gun deaths" is a more complicated issue than just the density of guns. Yet obviously the more popular guns are, it's likely that someone that really shouldn't have one ends up having them. And more accidents there are. I would argue that with some well thought legislation the situation could be radically improved in the US. Because banning all handguns (etc.) or similar drastic things aren't reality. Unluckily the debated is so agitated that much won't happen. Just look at the tone here even on a philosophy site.
You might want to hold your fire, so to speak. The "armed polite society" was most certainly at play in this shooting, you are just choosing to focus on those with an agenda, to harm innocent people using firearms AND explosives in this case.
Where is your call for laws against fireworks where enough explosives can be extracted from to cause mass casualties?
Where is your call for every remote controlled toy car to be destroyed because it was going to be used as tripping device on the explosives?
The firearm is easy for you to rail against because it cannot rail back. How about looking at the people behind the firearms first?
Oh, dear, this gun fetish meme.
Fireworks are probably more regulated than guns in the US. In any case, if you think fireworks are such great weapons you shouldn't mind a gun ban - buy fireworks. I've notice most mass killers don't use fireworks; they use guns - I wonder why?
Of course, fireworks have utility beyond killing people. Guns are designed to kill people.
Now, lets all wait for the next gun meme, maybe something about how cars kill people.
Landru Guide UsDecember 04, 2015 at 02:08#46770 likes
Insecure people tend to be violent, not prudent. That why they're so whacked out they need guns to buy coffee at Starbuck's
Well, you simply don't get the point that people are trying tell you, so whatever, Landru.
Besides, The most likely people that end up having accidents with guns or shooting people have other difficulties in their own life. People that have mental problems, excessive moods swings and are extremely impulsive really don't make good gunowners. Now can this be done away with feasability exams, having to go to the doctor to get an OK pass for to get a gun licence? It's problematic, but sure, to make it really an effort to buy a gun will put off many people. Yet any system won't work optimally: some will really be treated unfairly and some who shouldn't get guns will obtain them. Then of course there is the question of a black market. How easy is that when the country is already filled up with guns?
Landru Guide UsDecember 04, 2015 at 03:03#46880 likes
Well, you simply don't get the point that people are trying tell you, so whatever, Landru.
Besides, The most likely people that end up having accidents with guns or shooting people have other difficulties in their own life. People that have mental problems, excessive moods swings and are extremely impulsive really don't make good gunowners. Now can this be done away with feasability exams, having to go to the doctor to get an OK pass for to get a gun licence? It's problematic, but sure, to make it really an effort to buy a gun will put off many people. Yet any system won't work optimally: some will really be treated unfairly and some who shouldn't get guns will obtain them. Then of course there is the question of a black market. How easy is that when the country is already filled up with guns?
Your argument reduces to a claim that gun restrictions can't be perfect; therefore why have them? Do I really need to rebut sophistry like that?
Let me help: Guns are dangerous instruments designed to kill people. People who think they need guns to go about in society are thinking about killing people. They are not to be trusted and normal citizen (like myself) have a right to be protected against these goofballs. Therefore, guns should be banned and then we can arrest the people who violate the ban knowing they are intent on killing people, before they actually kill people.
It's that simple. Works in the UK and Australia.
The indisputable fact is, if you scratch a gun advocate, you'll find a person who really wants to kill somebody.
The indisputable fact is, if you scratch a gun advocate, you'll find a person who really wants to kill somebody.
That's a bit too far of an exaggeration, Landru. I'd just highlight here the point I made awhile back that you can't somehow escape violence in our society -- even if you prefer to delegate violence out. I'll note that in spite of the difficulties surrounding weapon ownership I still prefer to own weapons, and keep it that way.
I'm sure there is bound to complex social issues involved, like socioeconomic determinants for example, and to really get to bottom of it in terms of good legislation will be a quagmire of buck passing that places blame somewhere other than governance - usually ends up being 'individual responsibility' in some way. Placing the person as the cause and locale of problems is the usual tactic to distract from the broader issues of 'gun-culture'. They say, 'Guns don't kill people. People do', basically, but we don't go on to consider, 'but why exactly do they kill each other'. One could say that people merely fill subject positions which are prescriptively availed by the social body, and we could inquire into how killers with guns are written into the social discourse.
Reply to ssuReply to Throng Unfortunately guns, gun ownership, gun violence, the 2nd Amendment, and some other issues have been become so intertwined they are inseparable.
Most Americans (2/3) don't own guns.
The 1/3 of Americans who own guns are not responsible for most of the deaths resulting from gun fire.
A large majority of Americans want some kind of policy (nobody knows what this would be) which would reduce violence.
The leadership of the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) are not entirely in step with their own members.
Many of the guns used to kill people are obtained through less-than-legal means.
But some massacres (Like the latest one) involved at least some legally purchased guns.
Gun violence is not evenly distributed across the population.
The community who suffers the most from reckless gun violence by gun owners (the black community) is at odds with the police.
Some black deaths as a result of police fire were literally over-kill, but most of them were not.
The first problem we need to solve is how to reduce purely domestic, civil gun violence among the demographic groups that represent a disproportionately large share of the shooters and the shot.
The second problem we need to solve is is how to limit access to guns by the relatively small number of people who are deranged, mentally very unstable, delusional, and paranoid. (This can not be done with inadequate forensic psychiatric services.)
The third problem we need to solve is how to limit access to guns by the larger number of people who are engaged in criminal enterprises.
The fourth problem we need to solve is how to identify potential terrorists. (Terrorism might be scarier than routine run of the mill killings, but the far greater danger is from the low-lifes running around shooting at each other.)
The fifth problem, really the ultimate one, is how to change our society from the shithole it is becoming for large numbers of people, to one toward which most people feel much more loyalty, commitment, and from which they get more satisfaction. This problem makes gun control look like child's play, because it involves reorganizing national priorities, drastic reform of tax law, domestic re-investment, and a batch of other things that the ruling class really isn't all that interested in doing.
We won't solve our violence problem as long as we have a large number of people (across races, age groups, sex) disappearing from the labor market because they can't find work.
We can't solve our violence problem as long as we have a readily recognizable underclass which is largely confined to one race. (And the solution isn't to integrate the underclass by reducing even more people to lumpen status.)
We won't solve our violence problem as long as we have a steadily diminishing number of jobs that involve production of sufficiently valuable goods to produce a decent income.
We son't solve our violence problem as long as we continue to have an inflow of fairly low-skilled labor from countries with very low wage scales.
A lot of stuff has to happen if we are to solve our problems. I wouldn't suggest anybody hold their breath.
Landru Guide UsDecember 04, 2015 at 16:14#47190 likes
That's a bit too far of an exaggeration, Landru. I'd just highlight here the point I made awhile back that you can't somehow escape violence in our society -- even if you prefer to delegate violence out. I'll note that in spite of the difficulties surrounding weapon ownership I still prefer to own weapons, and keep it that way.
There's a difference between a society with a police force and a militarized society where everybody is primed to engage in gun violence. One difference is that the latter consistently suffers from gun massacres and their public space is eroded. Which of course is the goal of the gun fetishists. Their attack is really on the notion of democracy and a public realm.
In any case, the proposition that a armed society (forced militarization of every citizen) is a polite society is utter and complete rubbish. It's just the opposite of course. And the opposite is the purpose.
Landru, how much damage do you think a skillful maniac could do with a carpenter's hand saw, or a ten litre tub of premixed Caustic Soda in a crowded mall, before being apprehended?
Landru Guide UsDecember 04, 2015 at 21:43#47320 likes
Landru, how much damage do you think a skillful maniac could do with a carpenter's hand saw, or a ten litre tub of premixed Caustic Soda in a crowded mall, before being apprehended?
Fortunately gun nuts aren't skillful maniacs -- that's why they use guns. And that's why we need to ban them.
But thanks for pointing out that explosive are dangerous, which is why we regulate them and the purchase of their constituent parts.
Here's a concept: you can buy an assault weapon at a gun store; you can't buy a explosive device at an explosive store. So if you're suggesting we should make it just as hard to buy a gun as to buy explosives, I'm with you. But you're not of course. You're just excusing gun violence by making an invidious comparison to dangerous devices gun nuts don't use because they're hard to use and because nothing excites a gun nut more than killing people with a firearm. Pretty lame.
I haven't mentioned explosives at all, but hand saws and Caustic Soda; both of which are freely available for purchase.
Then your point is even more attenuated. If you think that a guy with a saw and lye can cause as much death as a man with a gun, then you shouldn't mind banning guns. Arm yourself with lye and saws -- I hear they're just as deadly as guns. NOT!
But the proof's in the pudding: gun nuts use guns. It probably has something to do with how deadly they are even for unskilled dolts who worship guns. I suspect most people can run away from a man with a saw carrying ten kilos of caustic substances.
Your argument reduces to a claim that gun restrictions can't be perfect; therefore why have them?
Try sometimes a new thing, Landru, read what the others actually write.
Take example from BitterCrank (or Throng above). They actually responded and made remarks to what I wrote and what I've been trying to say.
(One Canadian said to me once that Americans don't discuss issues in order to exchange ideas or viewpoints; they just pertinaciously and stubbornly repeat their own line and don't care what others say. Seems someone fits here into that category.)
Unfortunately guns, gun ownership, gun violence, the 2nd Amendment, and some other issues have been become so intertwined they are inseparable.
That's the main problem in my understanding too. Once you have the 2nd Amendment argument, the NRA has, well, a logical negotiating tactic of simply object to every legislation attempt. 2nd Amendment makes this easy as it makes gun regulation an issue of principle. This then makes it a "freedom that Americans enjoy", hence the issue becomes more than just some regulation, waiting times, bureaucracy to obtain a gun licence otherwise it would be. Gun legislation itself becomes this way "to attack the liberties that Americans enjoy". And what this means that the issue has ended up in a typical political cul-de-sac like many things in the US nowdays. And that cul-de-sac just creates a highly juxtapositional environment where there isn't any actual attempt to get a consensus. In fact, the "opposing sides" just keep mudslinging each other. And hence you end up with attitudes like Landru has here... and similar attitudes on the other side. And when the 1/3 of Americans owning guns means that a 1/3 (or even half of those) is a voter base far too big to forget.
You noted 5 well articulated problems. Gun legislation effects naturally every problem at least indirectly in some way. The biggest effect I see is the second problem, even if you correctly note that this is an health care issue too. Unfortunately how much an effective mental health care system prevents mass shootings we never can now. But actually if one really talks about gun deaths and to prevent them, then health care programs would be a major contributor to get the statistics down. Let's not forget that the majority of gun deaths are suicides. Sure, people can kill themselves easily by other means too, but proper health care can prevent suicides.
The third problem is difficult, because even now there are so many guns around in the US. Crime and for example gang related use of guns are part of the first problem you noted. Povetry is a cause for crime. Restrictions do work and so does police work, but the main cause is economic. Even if some people really want to be criminals, the majority just drift there.
So what could be done?
Well, you can hope that some massacre will create a opportunity to quickly put in some legislation, but that won't solve the thing. And not the political climate.
The first thing I think would be to try to change the self-defeating juxtapositional public discourse where this has become an issue that seems to divide by party lines. A good way would be to approach the legislation thing from the safety aspect. Starting from the fact that the US has statistically far too many accidents with guns than other countries have. That toddlers end up accidentally being killed with guns. Gun safety is something that even the NRA accepts. Approach the media here too. All those gun shows (or the new Gun TV) etc. wouldn't have a problem with it. Then approach the mentality just how and when to use guns. Like those people who are ready to fire their shotgun when somebody comes to their land. Yes, it may sound extremely lame, but the I think the main problem here is why nothing happens in the US is that everything in US politics has to be a fight and hence nothing goes through.
Landru Guide UsDecember 05, 2015 at 20:51#47790 likes
I thought this was a good response to the sanctimonious and hypocritical calls for prayers by various candidates for the nomination to the POTUS slot on the ballot.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 05, 2015 at 21:44#47840 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank Though there has been an uproar over the idea of prayer being the way to fix this problem, I do believe in the full quote that I read which was "God did not create terrorism, man did, so please do not look to God to fix terrorism."
At the same time, we are a nation who respects all faiths, so please pray if you wish but prayers are not going to settle this war between humanities.
There's a difference between a society with a police force and a militarized society where everybody is primed to engage in gun violence. One difference is that the latter consistently suffers from gun massacres and their public space is eroded. Which of course is the goal of the gun fetishists. Their attack is really on the notion of democracy and a public realm.
There are more possibilities than two, however. Most gun owners are not "militarized" -- and even those who are are no more militarized than our present day police force ;). Owning one's violence does not mean that you are militarized, either. It means that your choices to use violence are closer to home and harder to forget. I certainly don't call the police to my house.
What you present here is a false dichotomy, and not merely in some hypothetical sense. Gun ownership and usage is not an attack on public space or democracy. Many people own weapons without the fetishism you're targeting.
In any case, the proposition that a armed society (forced militarization of every citizen) is a polite society is utter and complete rubbish. It's just the opposite of course. And the opposite is the purpose.
I've agreed to your first sentence, though I don't agree with the latter.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 05, 2015 at 21:52#47860 likes
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff They treat people in our neighborhood differently than they treat people in other neighborhoods. There are worse places than my house, but the popo are hella corrupt in this city. I've witnessed them lie to defend each other in court -- I know they were lying because I had video evidence to the contrary. And they're an egotistical and trigger happy lot who don't go to the range as often as me. I'm also generally pretty good at de-escalating situations, where they. . . aren't.
Plus I've an anarchist streak through me, and so while I'm willing to work with the state, there's some personal disposition that just hates police in particular.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 05, 2015 at 22:10#47890 likes
Reply to Moliere The reasons you expressed are exactly the same here in AZ. Somewhere along the way, the Peace Officer became the Police Officer who has now been militarized. It seems like a losing battle here with Sheriff Joe because any other person, who has done what he has, would be sitting in a Federal prison but I digress.
Today the talking heads suggested that the Police Officers we have on the street, are not only our first line of defense, but they are having to morph from being a Guardian of our promised security to being the Warrior that has to be willing to take a bullet for what is often a very unappreciative public that no longer trusts those who are called to "help".
Privately armed citizens are able to react within seconds of an attack, those we have to 'call in' might be able to arrive at an active shooter situation in somewhere between 5 and 15 minutes. The majority of the massacres are happening within the response time of a privately armed citizen, rather than a prolonged siege.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 05, 2015 at 22:23#47900 likes
Just for the record: I live in Arizona and the law allows individuals, to legally carry a concealed weapon, without a permit.
However there are in fact individuals who have lost their right to own a firearm. I am one of those people because as long as I am a Legal Medical Cannabis patient and Cannabis is still against the Federal Law, the gun dealer would have to decline the sale of a firearm to me, because in the Federal Governments eyes, Cannabis consumption is against the law and they cannot sell to someone they know is breaking the law.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff I have no objection to sincere prayer; neither does God (He said so). When politicians who are running for office call for prayer, especially those politicians who are highly unlikely to do anything about violence in America, one should presume that a mendacious travesty is underway.
Suggesting that our thought and prayers be with the victims is cheap grace. It's a ploy. It's an affront to both the victims and to the God to whom the prayers would be directed.
What the legislators should be praying for is the courage to do what any rational legislature would do, even if it means they are bounced from office in the next election: enact laws that tighten access to assault weapons and hand guns--laws that are as tight as the NRA's grip on these bastards' balls.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 05, 2015 at 22:41#47930 likes
What the legislators should be praying for is the courage to do what any rational legislature would do, even if it means they are bounced from office in the next election: enact laws that tighten access to assault weapons and hand guns--laws that are as tight as the NRA's grip on these bastards' balls.
I am afraid that prayers are not going to give them the level of courage they need. It is going to take serious hard work, at every community level, to change anything regarding a limitation on firearms that are not already in place. Much like the Chinese Finger Puzzles, the harder the two ends pull, the tighter and smaller that middle ground gets.
We know the solution, right? One of the two opposing sides is going to have to willingly give in to the others idea in order to move anywhere. As divided as our country is, I just don't see the gun right advocates giving in and the sales of firearms and ammo since the attack in Paris are feverishly, perversely high. At the same time I do not see the gun control advocates backing down.
So tightly connected we are, stuck in the puzzle of our own making. Ironic thing about humanity is, that neither side will willingly give in, even though they know it is the only way to a compromise.
Just for the record: I live in Arizona and the law allows individuals, to legally carry a concealed weapon, without a permit.
However there are in fact individuals who have lost their right to own a firearm. I am one of those people because as long as I am a Legal Medical Cannabis patient and Cannabis is still against the Federal Law, the gun dealer would have to decline the sale of a firearm to me, because in the Federal Governments eyes, Cannabis consumption is against the law and they cannot sell to someone they know is breaking the law.
Begging the question: Why? Why limit gun ownership and possession one case and not another?
If gun advocates really believe the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow us to limit guns in all sorts of reasonable ways, then they have to admit that it doesnt allow us to limit guns in all sorts of unreasonable ways.
A true gun advocate should argue that passengers on planes and courtroom observers, not to mention imprisoned criminals should be allowed to own and possess guns.
Fact is the 2nd Amendment is just like any other Constitutional right - subject to balancing. But you wouldn't know that from the virulence of the gun fetish advocates.
Landru Guide UsDecember 05, 2015 at 23:16#47970 likes
There are more possibilities than two, however. Most gun owners are not "militarized" -- and even those who are are no more militarized than our present day police force ;). Owning one's violence does not mean that you are militarized, either. It means that your choices to use violence are closer to home and harder to forget. I certainly don't call the police to my house.
What you present here is a false dichotomy, and not merely in some hypothetical sense. Gun ownership and usage is not an attack on public space or democracy. Many people own weapons without the fetishism you're targeting.
In any case, the proposition that a armed society (forced militarization of every citizen) is a polite society is utter and complete rubbish. It's just the opposite of course. And the opposite is the purpose.
I've agreed to your first sentence, though I don't agree with the latter.
I'm simply following the logic of gun advocates, and it leads to forcing citizens to militarize.
If the proposed way to fight crime is to carry a gun and to be primed to use it at all times in a public space, you have essentially forced every citizen to militarize. And you have essentially destroyed the commons.
So my point is the proposition that an armed society is a polite society is exactly the reverse of the truth (which is the general strategy of conservative rhetoric). An armed society is a hostile, militarized, alienated society where might makes right and community is destroyed. This of course is the conservative agenda.
Then your point is even more attenuated. If you think that a guy with a saw and lye can cause as much death as a man with a gun, then you shouldn't mind banning guns. Arm yourself with lye and saws -- I hear they're just as deadly as guns. NOT!
But the proof's in the pudding: gun nuts use guns. It probably has something to do with how deadly they are even for unskilled dolts who worship guns. I suspect most people can run away from a man with a saw carrying ten kilos of caustic substances.
Those who want to inflict harm and kill will always find ways to do so. Mass shootings constitute a tiny percentage of total gun deaths.
I am not against tighter gun laws for the US. Here in Australia weapons are required to be registered, but citizens may still own them, even semi-automatic weapons. Tasmanian has the highest gun ownership, with, according to Wiki, 1 gun per 4 people. The Northern Territory is second with 1 gun per five. The problem is there is not a clear correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths.
Given the US has always been a 'society of the gun', I think a nuanced approach will be needed there, not an hysterically extreme 'black and white' approach; which you seem to be advocating.
I am not against tighter gun laws for the US. Here in Australia weapons are required to be registered, but citizens may still own them, even semi-automatic weapons. Tasmanian has the highest gun ownership, with, according to Wiki, 1 gun per 4 people. The Northern Territory is second with 1 gun per five. The problem is there is not a clear correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths.
Given the US has always been a 'society of the gun', a think a nuanced approach will be needed there, not an hysterically extreme 'black and white' approach; which you seem to be advocating.
Feel free to discuss this with the local troll, who actually has already earlier on the thread stated that Australia has a ban on guns and that this ban has successfully ended mass shootings. Your opinion will put you in the gun-nut, right-wing meme & drinking Kool-Aid section.
This is a video I saw on the NYT site of a man being shot by police. He was a suspect in a bank robbery. He was thought to be holding a barber's straight-edge razor. This is a good example of excessive force. The suspect didn't have a gun and hadn't displayed a gun in the alleged bank robbery. (He said he had a bomb.) Even though a throat could be cut quite nicely with a razor, a taser or a non-lethal shot (or maybe just a whack on the wrist with a club) would have been sufficient to disarm and or briefly incapacitate the man.
This situation is similar to a shooting in Chicago (from a year ago) in which an officer gets out of a squad car and in a few seconds shoots a young black male suspect (for something involving burglary, can't remember just what) who was running down the street, past the officer. The Chicago victim was not thought to have a gun. Shootings like this, of black men usually, are what infuriate the Black Lives Matter group.
Frequent gun fire in cities, frequent fratricidal killings by gangs and various criminal enterprises, gun ownership driven by fear of attack and fear that the police will fail to protect the community, high levels of suicide, undercounted non-employment, cutbacks in essential social support systems (the safety net), failing school systems, declining health outcomes (where that is happening), deep levels of chronic poverty, and so on are threats to the the liberty of a nation IN THIS WAY:
All these things undermine the average citizen's confidence in the institutions of society and lead them to be more susceptible to the harsher solutions offered by outright fascists, crypto-fascists, and proto-fascists. Is there a fascist plot in the works? I really don't know. I rather hope not--BUT, ineffectively controlled violence favors the development of fascistic groups. The militarization of police and the often disproportionate responses to any kind of resistance to the police are not typical of civil government.
I'm not blaming the heavy handed actions of the police alone. Liars, thugs, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels make their own hefty contribution to uncivilized life. They are not, generally speaking,any sort of force for good, civilizing influence, or democratic uplift movement. Neither are terrorists. Neither are mendacious, hypocritical, sanctimonious, devious, corrupt politicians. They all make it easier for some demagogue to step in and offer "simplification" with an iron fist.
The Great WhateverDecember 06, 2015 at 03:57#48200 likes
Yes, Virginia, there is a Landru. Landru, an omniscient computer on the planet Beta III, had a near-tyrannical hold on Beta III's people until Captain Kirk put a stop to it. This is the way Landru wished to represent himself. Apparently Kirk wasn't quite as successful as he thought. Landru escaped from Kirk through an unguarded TV screen back in the 1960s. Just walked out of the screen into a state college dorm TV room and took over. A generation of leftist students was the result. There was infiltration and subversion. There were sexual outrages on campus. Lesbian separatists performing unspeakable acts on the Quad (It was quickly paved over -- literally - to contain the sacrilege. Sodomy in the stacks. Buggery back stage. Je suis l'homme -- well never mind.
Landru Guide UsDecember 06, 2015 at 05:54#48450 likes
Those who want to inflict harm and kill will always find ways to do so. Mass shootings constitute a tiny percentage of total gun deaths.
The sense here is either counterfactual or irrelevant, depending on what you mean.
In fact those who want to inflict harm don't always find a way. They find guns. Guns are a really effective way to kill large numbers of people. Knives and baseball bats aren't (Now watch ssu stupidly cite Rwanda, which involves a huge gang not a lone killer -- wait he already did).
In any case, I already said that gun violence is unique. It destroys public space. Banning guns ends gun violence. The UK and Australia ban show that. End of story.
Will it stop a greedy nephew from murdering Auntie Jane for her money? No. But that's not what were talking about so if this is your meaning you're distracting.
I am not against tighter gun laws for the US. Here in Australia weapons are required to be registered, but citizens may still own them, even semi-automatic weapons. Tasmanian has the highest gun ownership, with, according to Wiki, 1 gun per 4 people. The Northern Territory is second with 1 gun per five. The problem is there is not a clear correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths.
You're being disingenuous. The Australia National Firearms Agreement banned what we would call assault rifles, except special cases, and those cases are very restricted. It banned the importation of such weapons, and parts, suchs a banana magazines. It bought back 20% of the guns in Australia, the equivalent of 40M in the US. If required gun owners to have standardized security for the guns, and required licensing with an ID. In short, it was close to a ban.
So why are you being disingenuous?
The UK has an absolute ban. Since it did so, it has had no gun massacres. Neither has Australia since the Port Arthur massacre resulted in the NFA. Neither has Ireland. Neither has Japan.
Conclusions gun bans work to stop gun massacres. Anybody who says otherwise is just a gun nut.
Does a gun ban stop all crime. Of course not. Nothing does. Crime is a complex social phenomenon. Gun massacres aren't. They're easy to stop: ban guns.
Given the US has always been a 'society of the gun', I think a nuanced approach will be needed there, not an hysterically extreme 'black and white' approach; which you seem to be advocating.
I love it when gun nuts project and talk about bans as hysterical.
I tell you what, go to a gun forum and propose the NFA, and see who acts hysterically. Gun nuts are weird people
Landru Guide UsDecember 06, 2015 at 05:56#48460 likes
Feel free to discuss this with the local troll, who actually has already earlier on the thread stated that Australia has a ban on guns and that this ban has successfully ended mass shootings. Your opinion will put you in the gun-nut, right-wing meme & drinking Kool-Aid section.
Once you call out a gun fetishist, all he can do is sputter and blubber.
As I pointed out the NFA is effectively a ban. John is being disingenuous. But you and he can work it out. I bet if someone in Finland proposed an NFA you'd go all gun nut and say your rights are being infringed. It's what gun nuts do.
It's kind of funny that you're agreeing with John and don't have any idea what the NFA does. But than factual awareness is not a strong point of gun culture.
Landru Guide UsDecember 06, 2015 at 05:57#48470 likes
Yes, Virginia, there is a Landru. Landru, an omniscient computer on the planet Beta III, had a near-tyrannical hold on Beta III's people until Captain Kirk put a stop to it. This is the way Landru wished to represent himself. Apparently Kirk wasn't quite as successful as he thought. Landru escaped from Kirk through an unguarded TV screen back in the 1960s. Just walked out of the screen into a state college dorm TV room and took over. A generation of leftist students was the result. There was infiltration and subversion. There were sexual outrages on campus. Lesbian separatists performing unspeakable acts on the Quad (It was quickly paved over -- literally - to contain the sacrilege. Sodomy in the stacks. Buggery back stage. Je suis l'homme -- well never mind.
I'm trying to guide them, but like Kirk, they won't listen
It obviously is. There's something inherently wrong how US policemen approach these situations. Perhaps it's the response to 9/11 mentality: to show that the police are doing things, the kind of militarization happens. It cannot be anymore only the excesses, just a few incidents from many. Basically the militarization of the police is something real and severely counterproductive. When the first this is to take out the gun for a police officer, something has totally gone wrong in a lot of things.
Here's an "open carry" experiment in the US where a white guy carries a semi-automatic around and then a black guy carries the same weapon around. Both times the police stops the men (which is totally understandable), but the difference between how the police acts is obvious. Prime example of what "racial profiling" means in reality. The experiment was actually very dangerous ...and if you would have had a Middle Eastern guy with a beard, he would have likely been shot in my view.
The reaction cannot be because somehow policework is now more dangerous. The following graph tells it all just how dangerous being a policeman in the US has been. And no, it's not because the police is more trigger happy that the fatalities have gone down:
It really cannot even be the zero-crime-tolerance attitude or the "No-broken-windows" strategy. What I think it's basically comes down to is the "War on Terror" mentality (as I said before) where successfull Crimefighting means a "war against crime" that your ready to use lethal force all the time at the maximum. Hence the flakvests, assault rifles, SWAT gear. Hence if some police department doesn't have it's own SWAT team, heavy arsenal of weapons, it doesn't look like it's up to it's job. What if a terrorist attack happens and they aren't ready? It's this created atmosphere where the World has become far more dangerous than before. When it actually isn't.
Frequent gun fire in cities, frequent fratricidal killings by gangs and various criminal enterprises, gun ownership driven by fear of attack and fear that the police will fail to protect the community - The militarization of police and the often disproportionate responses to any kind of resistance to the police are not typical of civil government.
This fear is basically what the police responds to with a more aggressive stance. And people have these worries, rightly or wrongly. Yet a highly publisized attack will have big consequences: like that the guards at the mall will have submachineguns and flakvests. Best example are the armed voluntary groups that have sprung up... for example to patrol the US Mexican border.
(Obviously a Superpower cannot secure it's borders, so civilians have do it themselves...)
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 06, 2015 at 13:51#48670 likes
Begging the question: Why? Why limit gun ownership and possession one case and not another?
There are a lot of limits on who can legally own and posses a firearm, I assure you that I am not the only person prohibited from doing so. If you are over the age of 18, you are allowed to posses a firearm unless you are disqualified by one of the nine categories listed below:
*Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;•Fugitives from justice;•Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;•Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;•Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;•Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;•Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;•Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and•Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Though I felt slighted by the exclusion because of my medical choices, when I look at the others who are excluded under the same category, I understand and am amicable to the laws as they have sat since 1968.
Did I mention that all of the males here at the ranch are Archers as Marksman?
In case you are not an Archer, the arrow in the yellow ring, has another arrow shot directly into the first arrow. Not bad eh?
Now before we start controlling bow and arrows, let's remember that primitive bow and arrows can be found and forged from elements of the earth, the world over.
Now before we start controlling bow and arrows, let's remember that primitive bow and arrows can be found and forged from elements of the earth, the world over.
No, let's ban guns and keep bows and arrows. You just argued that they're as deadly as guns so you shouldn't mind. Stock up on bows and arrows.
Ah the absurdity of a mind on gun culture.
ProbablyTrueDecember 06, 2015 at 21:54#48950 likes
There is a particular community that exudes the characteristics that you are mocking, Landru. However, the majority of gun owners(in my experience) don't fall into that category. The reason people here calling you a troll is because you either don't see or pretend not to see this issue on a spectrum. It is not so perfectly black and white as you portray it.
Of course it isn't a black and white issue. There are all shades of gray from gun metal black to the faintest gray of smoke coiling out of the barrel.
If one fractions the 320 million American population into gun owners, then gun nuts, one ends up with maybe 13 million gun rights activists as a rough estimate. While 13 million is a small fraction of 320 million, it's still a lot of any kind of nut, whether it be the gun nut, anti-abortion nut, gay liberation nut, communist nut, or charismatic Anglican nut.
Pro-gun lobbying is carried out by a multibillion dollar industry. The interest of gun manufacturers is somewhat different the ideological gun nuts: The industry is about making money, and protecting access to a largely untapped market. 2/3 of adults don't own guns. The manufacturers don't want to see that potential market closed off by restrictive legislation.
Just consider the handgun business: more than 3,100,000 were manufactured in 2012. The list below is not exhaustive, and leaves out some of the military suppliers that also have products in the retail stream.
Saeilo, Inc (Kahr Arms) Saeilo, Inc is the parent company of Kahr Arms. They produced 65,327 pistols at their Worchester, MA plant. -
Kel Tec CNC Industries, Inc. Kel Tec produced 78,074 pistols at their Cocoa, FL facility in 2012.
Beemiller, Inc (Hi Point) which made 82,700 pistols at their Mansfield, OH factory. -
Taurus International Mfg, Inc. 92,074 pistols in Florida
Kimber Mfg, Inc. 120,152 pistols manufactured
Glock, Inc. 131,550 pistols in 2012 in Smyrna Georgia (more in Austria)
Beretta USA. 140,670 pistols in 2012 at Accokeek, MD plant
SIG Sauer, Inc.532,575 pistols in 2012
Smith & Wesson 542,297 pistols at one plant, 216,150 at a second plant
Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. 1,247,299 pistols and revolvers manufactured in 2012 -
According to Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks @ArguingWAristotleTiff (see below), Paul Ryan just recently blocked legislation aimed at preventing those on the terrorist watch list owning guns. Presumably you would agree that a) the sole reason he made that move was probably because he is in the pay of the gun lobbyists and that b) it was a very bad move.
The fact that your politicians and their gun lobbyists are happy to have suspected terrorists owning guns as long as they can make money out of the situation should seriously disturb you. I can't think of any other developed country where politicians could get away with that level and type of corruption.
The reason people here calling you a troll is because you either don't see or pretend not to see this issue on a spectrum.
Actually I'm not calling him a troll because of that. I'm calling him a troll because he doesn't even respond to actual comments of others, but just lambasts, makes derogatory remarks about others and gives strawman-arguments that he thinks others have in their mind. Who cares what people actually write or think? You don't have to respond to what people write. Facts, like that Finnish gun control is far closer to Australia than the US don't matter (or that Finland is a country like Australia that made gun legislation more stricter after a shooting incident). Doesn't matter, Landru has this own created stereotype for anybody that might say anything other than he thinks. A troll wants to rant, insult people and get the people angry. A troll thinks if people get angry, then naturally he has won the argument. Landru is a simple troll, or at least behaving that way.
What I'm starting to be fed up with of is the total inability or incapacity to think about this issue, or any issue actually, in other than the idiotic juxtaposition of the US politically discourse that dumbs down everything to simple ranting about the opposite views. The most idiotic discourse is of course in the right-wing camp (perfect example is Trump), yet that doesn't mean that the other side is somehow ideal and constructive. The confrontational aspect of US discourse is the basic problem in the US. The ultimate reason for the confrontational attitude is simply that the two parties are actually ideologically very close to each other, basically making legislation for those who can pay for it, and hence they have this urgent need to portray themselves different. Hence gaining a consensus isn't an objective. Some Americans can really think with their own minds. The majority seem to be complacent with just reurgitating the lines dear to them, which basically boil down to loathing the other side. You cannot be anything else than a "pinko liberal" or a "gun-nut", obviously, you have to be basically either a republican supporter or democrat supporter. And if you come from a different political environment, where gun control is far more stricter and widely supported (even by yourself), who cares a sh*t? Your either a "pinko liberal" or a "gun nut GOP supporter".
Hence I don't have much hope for the US. If even in a Philosophy Forum any kind of serious talk what actually to do is impossible without ranting, it's obviously worse in other forums. And there's no solution in sight. The dumbing down of US politics has indeed been very successfull.
Mayor of SimpletonDecember 07, 2015 at 10:27#49190 likes
WOW!
What a horrible topic!
(Time for a rant... as if that would be something new in this case...)
Can we put it into 'Philosophy of Religion'?
--------------------------------------
Anyway...
... I always thought that 'gun control' in the USA meant using two hands to fire a gun rather than just one.
Might I add that no guns where harmed in these shooting.
More fun to spin how you like... there's a stat for everyone, get 'um while they're hot!
---------------------------------------
Can we simply agreed that the human species is simply an irresponsible one?
If we are irresponsible with our toys, which works better...
...more toys or less toys or no toys or simply lessen the number of irresponsible people?
If the latter, then how?
Should we simply shoot them? :D
---------------------------------------
Now if we can only debate the merits of a religious order who advocates circumcision using an AK 47 vs. another religious order who advocates the use of a Glock 9 to perform the task instead? :s
---------------------------------------
Anyway...
... crap topics like this take the headlines when people seem to be under the misconception that there are idealistic absolute answers to questions which indeed are quite relative in nature.
Perhaps less of the ranting religious devotion to one side or the other, as if there are only two sides to the issue and look at who is holding the guns and especially WHY they are holding them.
As far as I can tell, the vast majority of the reasons to hold a gun are only there because we are allowed to hold a gun and simply don't trust the others who have been granted this liberty... so what we have is a religion founded upon fear and distrust... a very typical psychological religious disorder, so to be honest... they are really shitty reasons at best, so I suppose shitty reasons will the the best we can do in a debate.
Again...
... can we have this topic moved to 'Fetisch of Religion'?
Meow!
GREG
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 07, 2015 at 12:37#49210 likes
Reply to Baden Paul Ryan is trying to strike a balance between not reacting emotionally to what the gun control advocates use as their platform, the crisis of the moment, BEFORE it is even over. As soon as a gun is known to be involved, they latch on to tightening gun rights.
In voting down the bill, that would paint with a VERY broad brush, that if someone is on a No Fly List that they should also be banned from purchasing or possessing a firearm would violate American citizens Constitutional right to do so.
Simply based upon the unconstitutional foundation in which the No Fly list was compiled. Tens of thousands of people are on the No Fly List but for the American citizen, they are promised due process and suspicion does not satisfy the governments right to infringe on your individual rights. There are many, MANY people that should never have been put on the No Fly List and that is a nightmare to try to challenge but to sweepingly take away a individuals Constitutional right would be illegal.
Landru Guide UsDecember 07, 2015 at 23:39#49660 likes
There is a particular community that exudes the characteristics that you are mocking, Landru. However, the majority of gun owners(in my experience) don't fall into that category. The reason people here calling you a troll is because you either don't see or pretend not to see this issue on a spectrum. It is not so perfectly black and white as you portray it.
Of course you are correct about many people owning guns and not being nuts. Most people who own guns just have them sitting in their closet, where they will never use them and where if they tried to use they would likely shoot their foot or their uncle Fred getting a midnight snack (that happens with frightful regularity but it isn't some looming threat). Some people own guns to hunt (though very few). I owned guns in my salad days, not knowing any better. I don't really have strong feelings about guns. They're not very interesting or useful. I have strong feelings about the danger of gun culture, which is undeniable.
So, the issue is should the rights of people to casually own guns trump the danger guns pose for society by empowering the weirdo cadre of gun fetishist who seem to have a propensity of going out engaging in mass killings.
If your position is yes, we profoundly disagree.
Landru Guide UsDecember 07, 2015 at 23:42#49680 likes
?Baden Paul Ryan is trying to strike a balance between not reacting emotionally to what the gun control advocates use as their platform, the crisis of the moment, BEFORE it is even over. As soon as a gun is known to be involved, they latch on to tightening gun rights.
In voting down the bill, that would paint with a VERY broad brush, that if someone is on a No Fly List that they should also be banned from purchasing or possessing a firearm would violate American citizens Constitutional right to do so.
Simply based upon the unconstitutional foundation in which the No Fly list was compiled. Tens of thousands of people are on the No Fly List but for the American citizen, they are promised due process and suspicion does not satisfy the governments right to infringe on your individual rights. There are many, MANY people that should never have been put on the No Fly List and that is a nightmare to try to challenge but to sweepingly take away a individuals Constitutional right would be illegal.
Oh, yeah, Ryan has a cool head and uses soothing conservative rhetoric in facing crises.
Jeez, once you believe in gun culture, you can believe ANYTHING!
By the way, conservative Republicans called for and got the No Fly list, but don't let facts get in the way of your narrative.
Interestingly the US and Belgium, being the only countries with permissive gun laws are bang in the middle when it comes to both Rampage Shooting Incidents and Fatalities per capita.
I can't imagine what you think it is that the US is winning, but this data seems to do nothing to support your contentions.
Landru Guide UsDecember 08, 2015 at 09:43#50580 likes
Interestingly the US and Belgium, being the only countries with permissive gun laws are bang in the middle when it comes to both Rampage Shooting Incidents and Fatalities per capita.
I can't imagine what you think it is that the US is winning, but this data seems to do nothing to support your contentions.
This is poor analysis. You have to compare big countries with big countries. Big samples are very different from small samples when it comes to regularities and prediction. Small numbers are subject to being easily skewed by irrelevant or unpredictable events. This is Statistics 101.
Compare the US with China, Russia, Germany, Britain, France - we're winning the gun massacre competition hands down. Thanks NRA and thank the NRA's mathematically illiterate defenders.
Nonsense. A population of a few million people is plenty big enough to assess average trends.
ProbablyTrueDecember 08, 2015 at 11:02#50600 likes
Reply to Landru Guide Us
I don't disagree with you entirely. I think at the very least the US needs to start making it more difficult for people to own them; e.g., permit courses, long hold periods, psychological tests, etc.. Unfortunately the NRA fights every little battle as if it's the whole war, which effectively stalls most reasonable gun legislation. In a way I suppose it is the whole war since it's incremental changes that are going to eventually change the culture.
I do sympathize with people who use a gun(s) for home protection. Especially those who live in less urbanized areas where wait times for police would be unreasonably high. I personally have a handgun in my home that I would be glad to have if my front door was kicked by the Manson family or would-be burglars at 4 in the morning.
Is that likely to happen? Burglars, maybe; Manson family, extremely unlikely. It doesn't take much perceived risk for people to want to hedge their bets though.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 08, 2015 at 12:43#50610 likes
Residing in Maricopa County, AZ we are protected by the Maricopa County Sheriff Officers, who is led by Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Here is what he wants us, as private citizens, to do with our firearms.
“My goal of utilizing 250,000 citizens armed with concealed weapons is to stop the carnage, stop the killing before cops arrive,” said Sheriff Arpaio in a video posted to social media.
The sheriff’s goal of getting 250,000 armed citizens would be just under 10 percent of the Valley's population.
Many gun owners agree that more armed citizens might be the answer.
From the top down...
photographerDecember 08, 2015 at 15:11#50670 likes
On a related note, the U.S. urgently needs a Mass Shooting Channel to make some room for real news on cable. Oh, and they could leave the Republican debate on the mass shooting channel.
Mayor of SimpletonDecember 08, 2015 at 15:27#50690 likes
On a related note, the U.S. urgently needs a Mass Shooting Channel to make some room for real news on cable. Oh, and they could leave the Republican debate on the mass shooting channel.
"...urgently needs"? :s
Don't they already have that in FOX News (aka the world's largest terrorist network :-$ )?
It is essential to get down to a "granular" level when talking about American guns & gun violence. The 320 million Americans living in this 3.8 million square mile country are not a single environment. Look at census tracts or zip codes. A large number of the ZIP codes and census tracts have about the same level of gun violence as London, Copenhagen, or Amsterdam. There are some ZIP codes, though, that compare favorably with war zones. The different levels of gun violence are stark: 1-5 deaths per 100,000 people per year, in a low gunfire ZIP code to 100+ per 100,000 people per year in a violent ZIP code. Then there are zip codes that are pretty violent, but not war zones - like Mississippi or... Arizona?
Most Americans do not live in high-death-rate ZIP codes because most of us are not impoverished black people living in zones of extremity (i.e., the ghetto) or old fashioned southerners or wild west gunslingers. Most Americans are not engaged in high-risk occupations such as illicit drug sales or gang management. Most American are not hanging around in any of the various ghettos.
For the most part, we don't have a problem with guns! Exclude the ghettos, exclude suicides, exclude accidents, and it's not a terrible problem. The exclusions reveal the real problem: It isn't guns.
It's a dysfunctional economy and culture manufacturing death in the ghetto. It's a dysfunctional society driving suicides. Too many guns in the hands of amateurs and children leads to accidents.
The NRA has nothing useful to contribute to America's real problems. It's a fetish of conservatism. Liberals aren't doing much for America's problems either. I love liberals more, but to be honest, they're not really doing much for us either.
Just to be clear, I'm not blaming blacks. They are as much victim as perpetrator when it comes to violence. Nobody in the ghetto elected to be there. Social Dysfunction built the ghetto and social dysfunction governs the ghetto. That goes for Europe too. The various populations living in the outer arrondissements of Paris weren't hoping to end up in a dead end. The French didn't intend those arrondissements to be dead ends either, but such are the failures of policy.
Here John Fogerty makes the eternal much belovéd proposal (2007 - Revival)
photographerDecember 08, 2015 at 16:16#50730 likes
If your approach were solid research rather than hand-waving BC it would look a lot like the epidemiological research that was subject to an NRA initiated ban, and now that the ban has been lifted remains unfunded by the Republican dominated Congress.
A good book relevant to the topic is Ghettoside: A True Story of Murder in America by Jill Leovy. Leovy spent several years on the LA TIMES LAPD beat. The book analyzes the high rate of homicide in South Central LA. One of her conclusions is that the homicide rate is so high is that murders there are nowhere close to adequately investigated and prosecuted. Consequently, a would-be murderer (say, a gang member who needs to "take care of business") can be fairly certain of getting away with murder. Something like 1/2 to 2/3 of murders are never 'cleared'. Far too few detectives are assigned to the area, and the population is notoriously uncooperative with the police, while at the same time urgently needing their services.
She makes some of the same observations as Stephen Pinker about the kind of cultural condition (anywhere in the world) which produces the high volume of violence. Marginalization, a regime of DIY justice, statelessness, powerlessness, and so on.
John, you might be right if the populations compared were very similar. I just saw a report that tried to compare Honduras to Switzerland in terms of gun ownership versus fatalities. See rebuttal here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/hondswitz.asp
Landru Guide UsDecember 08, 2015 at 21:00#50800 likes
On a related note, the U.S. urgently needs a Mass Shooting Channel to make some room for real news on cable. Oh, and they could leave the Republican debate on the mass shooting channel.
Too late, photographer. They already started one.
http://www.guntalk.tv/site88.php
Landru Guide UsDecember 08, 2015 at 21:01#50810 likes
He is probably one of the craziest and most divisive people in this country's leadership at the moment. It's no wonder he thinks more guns are the answer. He's appealing to people's fears, especially their xenophobia.
I don't disagree with you entirely. I think at the very least the US needs to start making it more difficult for people to own them; e.g., permit courses, long hold periods, psychological tests, etc.. Unfortunately the NRA fights every little battle as if it's the whole war, which effectively stalls most reasonable gun legislation. In a way I suppose it is the whole war since it's incremental changes that are going to eventually change the culture.
I do sympathize with people who use a gun(s) for home protection. Especially those who live in less urbanized areas where wait times for police would be unreasonably high. I personally have a handgun in my home that I would be glad to have if my front door was kicked by the Manson family or would-be burglars at 4 in the morning.
Is that likely to happen? Burglars, maybe; Manson family, extremely unlikely. It doesn't take much perceived risk for people to want to hedge their bets though.
Like I say, I don't think guns are very interesting or useful tools (except for committing mass murder and occasional hunting). Young adult males get all thrilled about them, and then most of them grow up and move on. Guns are noisy and expensive.
So it isn't guns per se, but gun culture that is problematic.
But I'm afraid we can never extirpate gun culture without banning guns. Guns are fetish objects for the weak-minded, who see them as the only way to grasp male power that they can't get by any other means. So I'm for banning them. Gun bans really do put an end to gun massacres.
As to home protection, unless someone trains constantly and is always at the ready, an armed intruder is going to shoot you dead before you even have time to load. And if it's in the middle of night, the likelihood that a person will have the presence of mind to get out of bed, get his gun, load it, and take down an intruder - in the dark - is somewhat fanciful. It happens but more often the guy shoots uncle Fred getting a midnight snack.
In any case, let me suggest that if people truly feel so insecure that they think their homes will be invaded by marauding criminals, they should be doing more to build a viable, just, safe democracy than arming themselves. Something is profoundly wrong with that society, and guns won't solve it. Though like you I'm sympathetic with people who just feel scared and want to protect themselves. But what does that say about the failure of our system?
Landru Guide UsDecember 08, 2015 at 21:28#50840 likes
John, you might be right if the populations compared were very similar. I just saw a report that tried to compare Honduras to Switzerland in terms of gun ownership versus fatalities. See rebuttal here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/hondswitz.asp
The meme analyzed by Snopes is typical of the misuse of statistics and outright lies propagated by the NRA and similar organizations.
The fact that deceptive graphs, statistics, memes is the stock and trade of gun activism is telling as to how totally ideological it is, even as it constantly pretends to be factual and unemotional (mostly via projection as we've seen on this very thread)
ProbablyTrueDecember 08, 2015 at 21:30#50850 likes
So it isn't guns per se, but gun culture that is problematic.
But I'm afraid we can never extirpate gun culture without banning guns. Guns are fetish objects for the weak-minded, who see them as the only way to grasp male power that they can't get by any other means. So I'm for banning them.
I agree for the most part. I don't think they're always fetish objects. Guns are a great equalizer for those of diminutive stature. However, they become a great un-equalizer when someone grabs an AK-47 and starts shooting up a public space.
It becomes a trade off. Do we think that the protection of people in private or public settings is more necessary/more important?I think it should probably be the latter.
Keeping a sword or machete at one's bedside would probably be an effective and possibly safer alternative if one felt the need for home protection. Banning guns outright is likely an impossibility at the moment. That's why I support incremental changes to the law to make it more and more inconvenient to obtain them. This would at the very least deter spur of the moment homicidal maniacs.
People will of course say that if you ban guns, only criminals will have them. That would be true for a time. However, I think the long-term benefits would outweigh the risks.
Point taken, Cavacava, thanks. I certainly don't want to argue that there is a clear correlation between gun laws and shooting deaths or rampage killings; quite the reverse, there are so many other complexities involved, so many differences between different societies.
Landru Guide UsDecember 08, 2015 at 21:50#50870 likes
I agree for the most part. I don't think they're always fetish objects. Guns are a great equalizer for those of diminutive stature. However, they become a great un-equalizer when someone grabs an AK-47 and starts shooting up a public space.
It becomes a trade off. Do we think that the protection of people in private or public settings is more necessary/more important?I think it should probably be the latter.
As I've said, there's no doubt most gun owners in the US just have them in their closet somewhere and don't give them a second thought. It's that small percentage who are fixated on firearms (and small is a relative term), that is a constant threat to our public space. Nor is it a coincidence that gun activism is associated with ugly political themes like white supremacy, xenophobia, violence against women, and so forth. So there is a bigger issue here in which guns are the focal point.
Keeping a sword or machete at one's bedside would probably be an effective and possibly safer alternative if one felt the need for home protection. Banning guns outright is likely an impossibility at the moment. That's why I support incremental changes to the law to make it more and more inconvenient to obtain them. This would at the very least deter spur of the moment homicidal maniacs.
A baseball bat next to your bed is probably the most effective melee weapon for home protection in the world. And they only cost about 50 bucks.
I don't doubt that a ban is politically impossible in the current environment. But that is always true of any progress at any time when there is no leadership. Transformational political leaders, like FDR make the impossible possible. The first step for getting a ban is calling for it.
People will of course say that if you ban guns, only criminals will have them. That would be true for a time. However, I think the long-term benefits would outweigh the risks
Ironically perhaps, the fact that only criminals would have guns is exactly the point, unbeknownst to the activists who use that slogan. Because it would be illegal to own a gun, we would know that the people who are caught with them are in fact criminals intending harm, and we could sentence them to prison without waiting for them to kill or injure somebody. When the bad guys own something that law-biding citizens don't, it's easier to identify the bad guys, especially since bad guys tend to get in other trouble with law enforcement for other reasons, allowing for searches, and hence arrest for gun possession.
That's why the ban on bombs is so effective - the only people who would possible possess a bomb are criminals planning to use it. So the slogan can be changed to if you criminalize explosives only criminals will have explosives. Yep. We did that and it works.
Landru Guide UsDecember 09, 2015 at 01:06#50950 likes
Residing in Maricopa County, AZ we are protected by the Maricopa County Sheriff Officers, who is led by Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Here is what he wants us, as private citizens, to do with our firearms.
“My goal of utilizing 250,000 citizens armed with concealed weapons is to stop the carnage, stop the killing before cops arrive,” said Sheriff Arpaio in a video posted to social media.
The sheriff’s goal of getting 250,000 armed citizens would be just under 10 percent of the Valley's population.
Many gun owners agree that more armed citizens might be the answer.
From the top down...
What could possibly go wrong with a brilliant plan like this?
Mayor of SimpletonDecember 09, 2015 at 10:12#51120 likes
Looks like America is winning again! Thanks NRA for keeping the US exceptional!
All I can do is laugh at it all...
... if not, I'd probably just cry.
Funny thing is when I went to high school back in the late 70's early 80's guys who drove to school in their pickup trucks all had gun racks in their trucks. Indeed there were guns on most all of those gun racks and also there when they were parked in the school parking lot.
We had issue, fights, cliques, outsiders and typical high school angst frustrations, yet no one ever considered using a gun to resolve a problem. Never ever...
What changed?
Granted these guns were all for hunting and were not AK 47's or 'gangsta hardware', but they were guns nonetheless.
I like the idea of making fat kids run until their gym shorts fit them. They won't have time to shoot each other or get indoctrinated via some sort of internet idealist bullshit con-artists claiming some sort of religious revolution. This fixes 3 problems all at once! :D
Meow!
GREG
Mayor of SimpletonDecember 09, 2015 at 10:57#51160 likes
What could possibly go wrong with a brilliant plan like this?
It is a 'Homeopathy Solution' to the problem:
Unlike a vaccination that introduces a diminished (micro) form of the virus itself into the system as to evoke the immune system to better fight off the virus, it is the (confused) notion that what causes similar symptoms of the virus can cure those symptoms of the virus, but completely ignores the root cause of the virus.
The only thing that works in the Homeopathy is that it is a treatment of the patient rather than a treatment of the disease. It is a personal form of treatment; thus the placebo effect of feeling that one is becoming better is simply the result of the feeling that one is being helped.
I don't intend this to be a 'strawman', but rather a direct one to one illustration of this argument, just in medicine rather than in public safety.
The concept used by this sort of argument is one of the (mis)conception of if we introduce more of the symptoms (guns) into a society with the problem of gun violence that the introduction of more guns will cure the symptom of more guns being used for gun violence, yet completely ignores of the actual issue of gun violence in it's root cause; that being the irresponsibility of people.
Is the cure for irresponsibility to introduce even more potentially dangerous responsibility for the irresponsible?
I much prefer the vaccination model of allowing the trained and trusted professionals the duty of doing the jobs they have been trained for and not having a bunch of untrained, trigger happy fearful people taking the law into their own hands...
... then again, the professionals have not been all that professional as of late, but here's a better question... why?
Do they have the ability to do the job they are there to do or have there been so many restrictions placed upon their ability to do their jobs by those who they themselves have never one been trained or had to do those jobs?
SPIN SPIN SPIN...
How many times do we get to hear about these professionals getting it correct in the day and age of 'trial by media'?
(reminds me... I leave for the United States of Whatever in a just 5 days. I love the commercials. If I didn't know better, I'd say the USA is simply made of fat type-2 diabetic balding men who cannot get an erection who are looking for the best means to make a quick buck in a 100% risk free investment.)
Kind of reminds me of education, where parent who have a couple of kids somehow think they are far better to understand how to educate young people than teachers who have had years of education and preparation to do the specific task, but by virtue of parents having functions secondary sexual organs and the ability to press out a kid or two... well that ability to produce such a 'miracle' (a very common thing and honestly a very piss poor miracle as far as miracles go) they know it all much much better than the professionals... not realizing that their attachment in terms of an empirical study would be considered a bias.
Sorry...
... go 'off-topic'. Well... not really, but for the sake of the debate, let's say it was off topic.;)
Homeopathy is to the gun lobby argument, as conventional medicine is to gun control argument.
CiceronianusDecember 09, 2015 at 19:08#51300 likes
Reply to Landru Guide Us Statements of this kind from the good Sheriff represent, to me, either an effort on the part of some in law enforcement to cover their asses or an admission that they cannot, or will not, do their jobs.
But, Landru, guns will never be banned in our Great Republic. And if guns are outlawed, only outlaws and Republicans will have guns.
Landru Guide UsDecember 09, 2015 at 19:38#51320 likes
Since your last comments, many that I agree with, are actually constructive, I'll have to apologize for calling you a troll.
I understand how passionately you think about the issue and, well, after years on the same forum I should know you. To make it clear, I'm actually against the notion of people having guns for self defence. Yes, there is then something wrong with the society when one really would need a gun for one's own defence. And even if crime happens in the most safest places too, having a gun to defend yourself mainly just worsens things. And it really goes the other way around: if criminals (like a burglar) know people won't be armed, why on Earth then have guns that likely will make the sentence more harsh if caught? In an environment where guns are common it's the criminal that first needs a gun. And basically the loaded handgun in the dresser is a very dangerous firearm. It's in my view the reason guns in the US are more deadly than in other places, and the American gun culture has a very negative impact. Yes, I'm not in favour of a total ban, so there we do disagree. I think hunting, sport shooting or military training are understandable hobbies or reasons (with the last one).
That's why the ban on bombs is so effective - the only people who would possible possess a bomb are criminals planning to use it. So the slogan can be changed to if you criminalize explosives only criminals will have explosives. Yep. We did that and it works.
This example actually has more to it in my opinion. Because there is a profession that does handle explosives, who work on construction sites etc. Hence there is the know-how and the ability to make powerfull bombs in the society. Yet this is heavily regulated, and it hasn't been a problem. Here also a lot of reservists that are trained engineers basically know how to assemble a bomb or an "improvised explosive device". Yet here the knowledge is restricted and reservist's backgrounds are checked if they come for example to a voluntary course where explosives are handled... and usually are hand picked reservists. Everybody understands that the knowledge in the wrong hands would be devastating. What is the problem is when the information about making bombs is made public (by referring to free speech) and if the materials are obtainable (parts other than the fertilizer), then there is a problem.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 11, 2015 at 12:54#52150 likes
Statements of this kind from the good Sheriff represent, to me, either an effort on the part of some in law enforcement to cover their asses or an admission that they cannot, or will not, do their jobs.
It seems to me that he is of the old school here in the West, where it is believed that an armed society, is a polite society, Just sayin...;)
There is a surge out here in Arizona as I am sure is happening in other states, for weapons used for self protection and classes on the safety in using those firearms have tripled. That tells me two things, one people feel personally threatened by the unknown risk of 'the bad guy' and the lack of trust in our leader as with the swipe of a pen he can control what guns are legal and the ammo necessary for the firearm.
"Local gun dealers are trying to cope with a massive increase in demand for guns, ammunition, accessories and firearms training classes. They say there are two reasons for the surge: a spate of recent terrorist attacks and the president's subsequent speech, during which he made renewed calls for more gun control."
That is a quote from http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20151210/article/151219971?tc=ar
There is call once again for firearms to be allowed in class rooms and how to handle that.
http://azdailysun.com/news/national/university-of-texas-could-allow-concealed-handguns-in-class/article_269557d8-0978-5cae-977c-4f7b4e59c4e8.html
Reply to Ciceronianus the WhiteReply to ArguingWAristotleTiff from the linked article "Texas is among eight states with provisions allowing concealed weapons on public postsecondary campuses, along with Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin."
First point: As Erik Fromm observers in his book, The Sane Society, crazy societies invert the definition of sanity. What would be crazy in a sane society becomes sane in a crazy society. Surely allowing concealed guns in classrooms, the library, cafeteria, and the campus chapel for "protection" fulfills the diagnosis of a very, very crazy society.
Second point: In her book, Ghettoside: A True Story of Murder in America, Jill Leovy quotes a very successful homicide detective in south-central LA to the effect that "the reason the rate of black on black murder is so high is that the police are not doing their job." The same probably applies to Chicago, which is having a festival of blood lately.
Third point: In a civilized society, the state has a monopoly on violence. Why? Because one of the appointed tasks of the state is to protect citizens from enemies within and without. So, "enemies without" is not our concern in this thread; enemies within is. (This doesn't infringe on the Amendment II right to own a gun for hunting or to defend one's humble abode from thieves or worse.)
I feel that the state does a reasonably good job of defending it's citizens from violent attack in places where the citizenry is mostly inclined to behave reasonably civilly. Large swaths of of the civilized world, including large parts of the United States, conform to this pattern. Civilized, sane people behave in a civilized, sane way. If the citizenry is inclined to behave uncivilly, and suffers mass paranoid delusions, manifested in such activities as do-it-yourself-justice, do-it-yourself-peacekeeping, do-it-yourself-border control, grenade launchers in the kitchen, do-it-yourself-wild west mayhem, do-it-with-a-bullet-conflict resolution, and so on, then the task of protecting citizens is more difficult, but not impossible. More guns means more difficulty protecting citizens.
If one happens to live in a crazy society, like the land of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, one would do well to acknowledge the insanity of one's Mea Culpa County.
Arpaio has been accused of
abuse of power
misuse of funds
failure to investigate sex crimes
improper clearance of cases
unlawful enforcement of immigration laws
election law violations
and others.
Sheriff Arpaio has been:
found guilty of racial profiling in federal court
has a court appointed monitor to oversee his office's operations
has jails twice ruled unconstitutional
The U.S. Department of Justice concluded that Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history and filed suit against him for unlawful discriminatory police conduct.[
As of September 2015, cases involving Arpaio or his office have cost Maricopa County taxpayers $142 million in legal expenses, settlements and court awards.
Starting in 2005, Arpaio took an outspoken stance against illegal immigration, and became a flashpoint for opposition to Arizona's SB1070 anti-illegal immigrant law, which was largely struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Arpaio is also known for his investigation of U.S. President Barack Obama's birth certificate, and his continuing claim that it is forged.
No wonder his immigrant mother died giving birth to him.
CiceronianusDecember 11, 2015 at 17:31#52300 likes
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff The problem with this idea (such as it is) is that those who buy firearms, especially out of fear, are unlikely to take the time or spend the money needed to learn how to use them properly, safely and well. They'll merely lug them about on the chance someone will do something with some other gun, and then try to use them. Or, they'll overreact and try to shoot shoplifters in a crowded parking lot or some other miscreant who presents no immediate danger to anyone, or will get very angry at something and, the gun being handy, make use of it without thinking.
As I think you know, guns must be taken very seriously. Encouraging people to buy guns and form a posse isn't a responsible position to take regarding deadly weapons.
Landru Guide UsDecember 12, 2015 at 01:19#52470 likes
. Yes, I'm not in favour of a total ban, so there we do disagree. I think hunting, sport shooting or military training are understandable hobbies or reasons (with the last one).
I'm using the term loosely: there are many ways to restrict guns that don't involve preventing hunters and sports shooters from practicing their hobbies.
For instance, I believe several Australian states require guns for such uses be locked up after use at a club or some other third-party facility set up for that purpose. Obviously this prevents mentally deranged people from stockpiling weapons for mass murder. So this is not an insuperable problem.
Landru Guide UsDecember 12, 2015 at 01:39#52500 likes
There is a surge out here in Arizona as I am sure is happening in other states, for weapons used for self protection and classes on the safety in using those firearms have tripled. That tells me two things, one people feel personally threatened by the unknown risk of 'the bad guy' and the lack of trust in our leader as with the swipe of a pen he can control what guns are legal and the ammo necessary for the firearm.
Because some guys in Arizona are going to protect our democracy like they did during segregation when they rose up against Bull Conner and the unconstitutional segregationist governments of the Southern states and confronted them with firearms to protect the rights of black people.
Wait, they didn't! They supported the authorities and called the civil rights champions communists. Oh for fun.
Anybody who thinks NRA types are going to protect the Constitution are seriously deluded. The only provision of the Constitution they want is the 2nd Amendment. The rest, they stand against.
I'm using the term loosely: there are many ways to restrict guns that don't involve preventing hunters and sports shooters from practicing their hobbies.
For instance, I believe several Australian states require guns for such uses be locked up after use at a club or some other third-party facility set up for that purpose. Obviously this prevents mentally deranged people from stockpiling weapons for mass murder. So this is not an insuperable problem.
It surely isn't.
Here you have to show the police that you properly store your firearms in a safe or a strongbox. Firearms cannot ever be loaded while stored (a totally rational thing), hence those firearms in the safe, possibly in pieces with the ammo somewhere else, simply cannot be a "defence" if a burglar comes into your house. And they aren't meant for that. And those semi-automatic guns that reservist associations use for voluntary military training here are kept usually in Army garrisons, which ought to be safe places to storage firearms.
That mentally deranged people don't get their hands on legal guns can be basically done with a rigorous selection process. Yes, somebody might be treated unfairly, but usually these are very rare cases. If somebody wants to start hunting or sport shooting, it isn't an overwhelming bureaucracy to get over. What truly effects the statistics is that it isn't easy to just buy a gun if you are contemplating suicide.
And those safes have a reason to exist. The real threat is simply that criminals break in for the firearms, once they know someone or someplace has expensive firearms. Hence for example those active reservists I know that own semi-automatic rifles or sniper rifles themselves do typically not want any pictures of them with their rifles as in a country where the circles are small as here, some criminal could identify just who owns the arms and obtain the address of the person.
When the laws and requirements actually take into account the actual use of these kinds of firearms, then it is something that the gun owners can live with ...assuming they aren't Americans who start their opposition of gun control from an ideological point of view.
There are many ways really to get the laws work. But then you need an environment where everybody understands that it is natural that firearms ownership and use has restrictions. In America, the real starting problem is the discoure and culture itself. It really is a philosophical question just where the fear that Americans have about terrorism, crime and whatever comes from that makes them to buy guns. And just how this "Second Amendment" discourse came to be what it is now, this kind of "example" of the "freedoms" Americans have.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 13, 2015 at 15:39#53060 likes
Arpaio has been accused of
abuse of power
misuse of funds
failure to investigate sex crimes
improper clearance of cases
unlawful enforcement of immigration laws
election law violations
and others.
Sheriff Arpaio has been:
found guilty of racial profiling in federal court
has a court appointed monitor to oversee his office's operations
has jails twice ruled unconstitutional
The U.S. Department of Justice concluded that Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history and filed suit against him for unlawful discriminatory police conduct.
Fortunately none of the above accusations come as a surprise to me as I have seen evidence, personally witnessed, Joe's abuse of power in 'getting back' at anyone who stands up to show resistance to his unlawful attacks. It bothers me greatly when I see people intimidated, people like ME, who are unwilling to stand up for the person in his crosshairs, for fear of retaliation by the Sheriff.
No one who witnessed a neighbor's civil rights being violated was able (made the choice) to speak out about what had happened, the way in which it happened and how it could have been any one of us he wanted revenge on. What was really intimidating, in fact mind blowing, was that the person who's civil rights were violated, was one of his own. He brought down the force of the law on a woman who had served as an officer, on his force for 30 yrs and had retired on a ranch up the way.
No trust in the man or the department he runs. Period. He runs the most corrupt department in the country. No, really. What he has done to the Latino population in Arizona is embarrassing as well as dysfunctional as they come. His M*A*S*H* unit for animals takes in millions in donations for the care of confiscated animals, yet there is no account for how much money has been donated and where that money has been spent. No accountability for the money gained in the sale of those animals if they are not returned to the citizens. He is the definition of hustle.
I would say that he lines his pockets with the lives of those he exploits but I will let Federal Justice Murray Snow make the final decision on Joe's lawbreaking ways finally being exposed and there is a chance that a great many Phoenicians will feel validated and if not? Go figure, we ARE talking about Joe, ya know?
I have a solution. Please tell me if it fits your needs: Ban guns, allow tasers and other stun weapons. For police also. Homes and people can still be defended by knocking the offender out without killing them. Right?
hunterkf5732September 03, 2016 at 18:35#192560 likes
An ever so slight problem may arise though, if the criminals happen to possess smuggled guns, which would leave the poor police fending them off with tasers.
Reply to hunterkf5732
Hmm, that point works against the pro-ban side too I see
are there stun weapons that stun for a long time (e.g days) until an antidote?
The effectiveness of this depends on how long police/criminal tension usually lasts (in all democratic countries please, don't assume everywhere is the states)
Reply to hunterkf5732 You can always have a dedicated armed response unit for those occasions. You don't need the entire police force to be armed. The UK gets by quite well with this model.
I have a solution. Please tell me if it fits your needs: Ban guns, allow tasers and other stun weapons. For police also. Homes and people can still be defended by knocking the offender out without killing them. Right?
An ever so slight problem may arise though, if the criminals happen to possess smuggled guns, which would leave the poor police fending them off with tasers.
I was going to mention what Michael said about a dedicated armed response unit. But my other point was that arming cops with tasers is also not without its problems. Just google "tasered to death by cops".
I was going to mention what Michael said about a dedicated armed response unit.
I don't think this would work in the US unless gun ownership was reduced drastically (which, with the 2nd amendment, isn't going to happen). The country is swimming in arms and nobody is going to want to be a cop if they think they're going to be a sitting duck out there.
The expression 'an armed society is a polite society' makes me think of such very polite people as:
- Dr No ('No Mr Bond, I expect you to die')
- Don Vito Corleone, courteously accepting the petitions of wedding guests to have their enemies harmed or sent to sleep with the fishes.
- Hannibal Lecter, and his Olde Worlde courtesy to Jodie Foster's character in Silence of the Lambs
- The courtesy that surrounded the verbal aspect of aristocratic duels to the death in the 15th-19th centuries.
How do we choose between a decrease in manners (assuming for the sake of argument the saying is true) and an increase in schoolyard killings? It's a tough one.
The obvious problem - well, seems obvious to me - is that the association of guns = freedom is burned in to the American consciousness. So 'taking away guns' = 'taking away freedom', and those who argue in favour of that, are therefore anti-freedom and a threat to the American Way of Life. It sounds crazy, but there it is.
Reply to Wayfarer The real problem is that those guns, no matter how much the constitution had in mind a collective defence of the nation by a militia force, are primarily there for personal defence. Not for hunting or sport shooting or actual intended cause (for a militia, which would be closest to reservists and National Guard members). Hence there's a massive amount of loaded guns on the desk drawyer own by people who in other countries wouldn't own them.
And then there is that idea of them as a symbol of individual freedom. And it should be admitted that the gun policies are indeed quite libertarian: that anybody can go to gun store and buy a gun without a long and cumbersome process where an official in the end decides if you are able to have a gun or not, or which kind of you gun you can have and how many.
How do we choose between a decrease in manners (assuming for the sake of argument the saying is true) and an increase in schoolyard killings? It's a tough one.
Oh, no wait. My mistake. It isn't.
Also, that an armed society is a polite society (assuming) is not that an unarmed society is an impolite society. Don't deny the antecedent!
Not necessarily, as there are numerous factors involving politeness. Also, the term may have different definitions.
Benjamin DovanoOctober 28, 2016 at 20:19#291520 likes
An armed society is a violent society so the concept of violence can't stack with politeness by nature I guess. You cannot be Pollitely Violent right ? :)))
Being armed is not the cause of being polite. Appeal to authority isn't logical, but I am not going to start an argument when a gun is to my head. Though, liberty or death is a very real sentiment.
Deleted UserDecember 26, 2018 at 23:41#2407580 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
This is a really stupid assumption. For one, we're technically already in an armed society and clearly it is not a polite one. Secondly, they're not even correlated. Thirdly, if the people aren't polite then having weaponry will simply make things more devastating. It implies a more easy way of execution by people who aren't polite.
'You think that because you have a gun I fear you? Yeah right, check this one out'. You see the point?
Let's not forget that if weapons are illegal it's fair to shoot whoever is carring a gun on sight. It makes targetting the bad guys a hell of a lot easier.
Let's not forget that if weapons are illegal it's fair to shoot whoever is carring a gun on sight. It makes targetting the bad guys a hell of a lot easier.
So who is going to shoot them if no one else is carrying a gun? And please don't answer the cops, because everyone knows there are hundreds of illegal guns for each cop.
So who is going to shoot them if no one else is carrying a gun? And please don't answer the cops, because everyone knows there are hundreds of illegal guns for each cop.
And how does that prevent the police from targeting people wielding these guns?
TheMadFoolFebruary 22, 2019 at 07:40#2583290 likes
Reply to Michael I don't understand how arming oneself helps to be be ''polite''. Is it fear of retaliation with deadly force that makes for the ''politeness''. The whole thing is premised on fear and that's not a polite society. It's a scared society. Perhaps fear of death is better than actually dying/killing.
And how does that prevent the police from targeting people wielding these guns?
It does not stop them at all, it just makes them ineffectual.
You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed, that is why the tape they use says "crime scene" instead of "crime prevention scene".
You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed
You seem to be hinting at some sort of ratio being low. What ratio do you have in mind? There is no obvious ratio that makes sense, given the above sentence.
You seem to be hinting at some sort of ratio being low. What ratio do you have in mind? There is no obvious ratio that makes sense, given the above sentence.
Keeping it in context helps.
Let's not forget that if weapons are illegal it's fair to shoot whoever is carring a gun on sight. It makes targetting the bad guys a hell of a lot easier. — Emmanuele
So who is going to shoot them if no one else is carrying a gun? And please don't answer the cops, because everyone knows there are hundreds of illegal guns for each cop.
It does not stop them at all, it just makes them ineffectual.
You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed, that is why the tape they use says "crime scene" instead of "crime prevention scene".
To answer your question, even if guns were made illegal that does not mean that they would just disappear. There are millions of illegal guns that the cops are not going to find until they are used in a crime. Just shooting anyone with a gun would not work because there are not enough people to do the job. Each cop would have to find and shoot several hundred bad guys. Not going to happen.
Reply to Sir2u That post doesn't answer the question, and provides no new information. I had already read the context.
To what ratio were you referring with your use of 'rarely'?
VagabondSpectreFebruary 23, 2019 at 05:03#2586110 likes
I don't think the titular assumption here is true, but it might contain some truth.
I would instead say that a dangerous society is a cautious society (and an armed society is a dangerous society).
The samurai of Feudal Japan were well armed, and you could say that their society was "polite" (downright honorable in fact), but that doesn't mean it was a safe or just society.
In other words, arms just raise the stakes.
I think the most relevant example is the case of nuclear weapons. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki no nation has used a nuclear bomb against any other nation. We avoided a hot war with the Soviet Union because both sides were too cautious in the face of the danger. So in that specific case, yes, armed society is more polite society, but it's a bit foolish to use this as a rule-proving-case. The M.A.D doctrine has worked out so far, but if it should fail at any point in the future its strategic utility will seem useless in hindsight.
And the M.A.D doctrine doesn't work unless everyone has the same retaliatory capability. We can envision a world where nobody can transgress upon others because of equal power distribution, but that's not the world we live in. Even if weapons were all evenly distributed, if everyone has access to extremely powerful weapons then society will still be too unstable (imagine everyone having their own nuke).
So, to increase politeness by modifying weapons access, we could either have a gun under every pillow and a tank in every garage (not so stable in the long run), or we could reduce the disparity by reducing the amount of guns out in the wild. If people have a harder time accessing guns, more powerful guns, and bullets, then victims will less frequently be drastically outmatched by the weapons of their transgressors.
Let's not forget that if weapons are illegal it's fair to shoot whoever is carring a gun on sight. It makes targetting the bad guys a hell of a lot easier.
— Emmanuele
So who is going to shoot them if no one else is carrying a gun? And please don't answer the cops, because everyone knows there are hundreds of illegal guns for each cop.
They need to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities using appropriate force. It's unreasonable to jump straight into assuming that they need to be shot. Jesus Christ. Not only is that an unreasonable assumption, it's a harmful assumption.
That kind of answer would surely fail a police exam. Or if not, say, in somewhere insane like Texas, then it should do.
They need to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities using appropriate force. It's unreasonable to jump straight into assuming that they need to be shot. Jesus Christ. Not only is that an unreasonable assumption, it's a harmful assumption.
That kind of answer would surely fail a police exam. Or if not, say, in somewhere insane like Texas, then it should do.
I think you should have addressed you reply to Emmanuele as he is the one that said it would be easier to shoot whoever was carrying a gun.
And in case you did not notice, I have not agreed with him on the idea.
Indeed, that was a classic case of red herring / missing the point.
As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.
ChristofferFebruary 24, 2019 at 01:38#2588340 likes
Just compare societies with low gun control and societies with high gun control - And then compare that to the statistics of best places to live in the world.
Is there a point to discussing when there's data that point to the truth?
To what ratio were you referring with your use of 'rarely'?
Let me ask you a couple of simple question, how many people get arrested for carrying a gun before they either try to use it or actually do use it in a crime? Do police where you live actually stop people and search them for weapons without a valid reason?
Rarely means not often, seldom, infrequently, it is rarely used in any other sense so I see no reason to be providing a definition of it.
You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed,
If you are having any trouble understanding the above sentence I don't know how to help you.
The ratio you keep on about I think is maybe something that I did not hint at but is implicit in what I said, lots of guns and very few cops. But I am sure that I had already said that.
If you are still having trouble, maybe S will get his magic dictionary out of the shit house so you can use it.
Just compare societies with low gun control and societies with high gun control - And then compare that to the statistics of best places to live in the world.
Is there a point to discussing when there's data that point to the truth?
That is well known and has been repeated ad vomitus throughout the thread. I don't think that anyone here disagrees with that. But the problem is what to do about it. No one has any ideas about how to solve the problem when there are so many guns and people involved.
It is easy to say "Bring in tougher gun laws" but as I have said since the beginning writing laws and enforcing them are two different things.
ChristofferFebruary 24, 2019 at 02:20#2588460 likes
I really don't see a problem with finding out what to do. The data is clear that strict gun laws and quality of life/politeness go hand in hand. There's pretty much grad school psychology to understand the mechanics of what guns do in people's hands, especially if a societies culture is "keep enemies out of my parameter or else...".
You're right in that it's harder to enforce the laws, but that's dependent on how the fundamental mentality of the people is. The solution will be, in places like the US, to either force people to follow the rules, or accept that the risk of mass shootings, school shootings, high violent crime and individual isolation out of fear of strangers is the norm. You either enforce laws or you don't, it depends on what the people want in a democracy.
Unfortunately, common people don't have the tools to understand this on their own, but you can still not force laws beyond the democratic process. So the only thing that I can see is positive is to educate, to provide the information about this to the people so that they, after a while, stop defending their personal preferences in order to increase the quality of life within their nation. Only at the right time can politicians enforce more strict gun laws without enraging half the country.
I really don't see a problem with finding out what to do.
Please feel free to make a viable suggestion. I am sure that the American society will thank you for it because they have not been able to come up with an acceptable idea.
You're right in that it's harder to enforce the laws, but that's dependent on how the fundamental mentality of the people is. The solution will be, in places like the US, to either force people to follow the rules, or accept that the risk of mass shootings, school shootings, high violent crime and individual isolation out of fear of strangers is the norm. You either enforce laws or you don't, it depends on what the people want in a democracy.
How do you force that many people to give up their guns? Even after all of the mass shootings and bad stuff that has happened the Americans continue to vote to be allowed to keep their guns.
Unfortunately, common people don't have the tools to understand this on their own, but you can still not force laws beyond the democratic process. So the only thing that I can see is positive is to educate, to provide the information about this to the people so that they, after a while, stop defending their personal preferences in order to increase the quality of life within their nation.
Don't put the common people down, a lot of us do understand the information. That is why they still refuse to vote for banning guns.
I stated a long time ago that one way to solve the problem is through education, changing the mentality of the people might change the feelings towards guns. But how long will this take and how successful will the education system be against family and street influences? And the biggest part of the gun problem is not the normal everyday guy in the street, it is the thugs, How do you educate them
I think I gave you the most realistic answer. Educate and turn people in a democracy towards wanting strict gun laws. You can't do much else. One thing to start with would be to force news and media to be objective, so that bought private companies won't spread misinformation that's supportive of a gun lobby agenda.
Don't put the common people down, a lot of us do understand the information.
Common people do not discuss these issues on a philosophy forum or try to figure out the truth about the world and existence. They want to drink Starbucks coffee and enjoy some evening entertainment or sport on TV. I'm not criticizing this (although I think people should care a bit more about truth), I'm only stating the facts of how the world is. Just see how many get excited at a party if you start talking philosophy. This is not what most common people have an interest in. Which also means that they don't have the tools to understand the issues and are easily persuaded by lobbyist and smart political rhetoric.
It's actually us, philosophers and people who've been putting a lot of effort and thought into the issues of this world, who will be the ones educating other people on these issues. Why do you think that philosophers have been gaining popularity as a hired consultant in many workplaces?
That's a bit of a naive question. It's time when it's time when people want it. Just look at how people have started waking up to the facts because of all the rapports of mass shootings. Or it can go in the other direction. For US, I think the problem is fundamental in US history and culture, so I don't think it's gonna happen anywhere but the most progressive states.
It starts with the people. If you want a solution, figure out how you can convince one single gun owner to give up their guns for the greater good. If you can't convince a single one, you won't be able to push a whole nation.
Common people do not discuss these issues on a philosophy forum or try to figure out the truth about the world and existence. They want to drink Starbucks coffee and enjoy some evening entertainment or sport on TV. I'm not criticizing this (although I think people should care a bit more about truth), I'm only stating the facts of how the world is.
You must have a very wide social circle to be able to make this claim. I know lots of people that probably do not even know of the existence of this and other similar sites, and they have opinions and discuss this topic along with other social problems. Why would anyone need to figure out the truth about the world and existence to be able to discuss gun control? Why do you think that no one ever does it while drinking coffee? And the funny thing is that I doubt that you have figured out the truth about the world and existence but here you are talking about gun control. Without providing a solution.
Just see how many get excited at a party if you start talking philosophy. This is not what most common people have an interest in. Which also means that they don't have the tools to understand the issues and are easily persuaded by lobbyist and smart political rhetoric.
Is gun control a philosophical topic? That sounds really weird to me. I thought it was a social problem that we were discussing possible solutions to. Exactly how does it qualify as a philosophical topic?
If I was at a party and some dork started talking about Plato I would probably want to shoot him, not because of the topic but because of the setting. Just because people do not want to talk about philosophy at a party in no way proves that they don't have the tools to understand the issues. Which are the ever so special tools that you say you have just because you come to visit a philosophy forum?
It's actually us, philosophers and people who've been putting a lot of effort and thought into the issues of this world,
Who is this "us"? I don't and I am reasonably sure that the majority of posters here do not consider themselves to be philosophers. I spend most of my time trying to sort out my own problems and have spent a minimum of time and effort on the issues of the world. What have you done to solve the problems of hunger in Africa, child labor in Indonesia or slave traders in Europe?
who will be the ones educating other people on these issues. Why do you think that philosophers have been gaining popularity as a hired consultant in many workplaces?
Before you can teach, you have to know. Which is the top of the list for jobs available for people with a philosophy degree. I have not been able to find any information about how many philosophers are actually hired as consultants but there does not seem to be much of a need for philosophy graduates in that area.
If you can please post a link to the information about that I would be thankful.
It's time when it's time when people want it. Just look at how people have started waking up to the facts because of all the rapports of mass shootings. Or it can go in the other direction. For US, I think the problem is fundamental in US history and culture, so I don't think it's gonna happen anywhere but the most progressive states.
It starts with the people. If you want a solution, figure out how you can convince one single gun owner to give up their guns for the greater good. If you can't convince a single one, you won't be able to push a whole nation.
So basically you, a self proclaimed philosopher, has no solution to the problem that has not already been discussed on this thread. All of the tools you say you have are just as useless as the ones the coffee drinking common people have.
But there is probably one thing that the common people have that you don't, a better understanding of how things affect them. Sitting high on a mountain looking at you belly button might make you a better philosopher, but until you get down in the streets you will not understand the problems you are trying to solve.
Do police where you live actually stop people and search them for weapons without a valid reason?
They don't need to. Where I live gun ownership is very rare and the gun crime rate is very low - partly because we have strong gun control laws, that have overwhelming public support.
Rarely means not often, seldom, infrequently, it is rarely used in any other sense so I see no reason to be providing a definition of it.
I know what 'rarely' means, and you know that I know it and that that has nothing to do with what I asked you.
You implied that some ratio is low and that that somehow helps your argument against gun control but, when we take your sentence and try to find a clear, precise proposition in it, we end up with nonsense. I suspect you've already realised this, which is why you keep on dodging the question.
Here's the nonsensical sentence again: Quoting Sir2u
You must have noticed that [the police] rarely get there before the crime has been committed, that is why the tape they use says "crime scene" instead of "crime prevention scene".
Why not just admit you wrote something that made no sense? It's no big deal. We all do it quite frequently, especially me. The admission wouldn't hamper your ability to continue arguing against gun control, should you wish to do so.
As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.
No, you just don't like it when I correctly identify an error in one of your replies, although I was basically beaten to the punch by andrewk when he said that you didn't answer the question. I just narrowed it down to two related informal fallacies and named them. Either you deliberately changed the subject, i.e. a red herring, or you make an irrelevant point without realising it, i.e. missing the point.
You must have a very wide social circle to be able to make this claim.
No, it's about being observant to the behavior and opinions of common people around you. If you want to know more about how things are being discussed outside of your own small group of friends and relatives you need to act like an anthropologist and really look and listen to how people are.
And the funny thing is that I doubt that you have figured out the truth about the world and existence but here you are talking about gun control. Without providing a solution.
I already told you the realistic route of action. Stop acting naive.
Is gun control a philosophical topic? That sounds really weird to me. I thought it was a social problem that we were discussing possible solutions to. Exactly how does it qualify as a philosophical topic?
Just because people do not want to talk about philosophy at a party in no way proves that they don't have the tools to understand the issues.
Have you ever met anyone outside of philosophy who can do a proper dialectic? Most discussions about sensitive topics always end up in brawls with each side always saying their opinion and no one reaching a higher level of understanding. It's exactly because of the lack of dialectic tools. But you don't seem to know much about these things?
Who is this "us"? I don't and I am reasonably sure that the majority of posters here do not consider themselves to be philosophers. I spend most of my time trying to sort out my own problems and have spent a minimum of time and effort on the issues of the world. What have you done to solve the problems of hunger in Africa, child labor in Indonesia or slave traders in Europe?
No, you are certainly not a philosopher, that's for sure. But you can study philosophy on your own in order to handle problems in a better way. Like, not acting as you do with the last sentence of that paragraph. Why do you think philosophers are now being hired, at a higher rate, to companies and businesses who need to make choices that affect people? Entertain the thought and the causality from that.
Before you can teach, you have to know. Which is the top of the list for jobs available for people with a philosophy degree. I have not been able to find any information about how many philosophers are actually hired as consultants but there does not seem to be much of a need for philosophy graduates in that area.
If you can please post a link to the information about that I would be thankful.
Philosophy is more about how you think about problems, not direct solutions to problems. What's the point of hiring someone who has the answers to current problems if they cannot solve new ones further down the road?
How can a question be naive? The person asking it maybe, although not in this case, but the question cannot be naive.
Of course a question can be naive, like asking what someone is doing with his philosophy to solve an entire continent of poverty. How is that not naive, blunt and fallacy-ridden?
So basically you, a self proclaimed philosopher, has no solution to the problem that has not already been discussed on this thread. All of the tools you say you have are just as useless as the ones the coffee drinking common people have.
I recommend that you study a bit more philosophy before you demand solutions in the way you do. You're acting like a child right now and it's probably not worth continuing this discussion when you seem incapable of being humble.
But there is probably one thing that the common people have that you don't, a better understanding of how things affect them. Sitting high on a mountain looking at you belly button might make you a better philosopher, but until you get down in the streets you will not understand the problems you are trying to solve.
You know nothing about me, so who's actually sitting on a high horse, judging?
They don't need to. Where I live gun ownership is very rare and the gun crime rate is very low - partly because we have strong gun control laws, that have overwhelming public support.
Lucky you, but there was probably never any guns to get rid of so the situation is nowhere near the same as we have been discussing. Gun laws and controls are preventative measures that prevent the problems from happening but are not always the solution to an existing problem like in the USA. Have you ever lived in a gun infested area? I work in the place that was named the murder capital of the world for several years.
I know what 'rarely' means, and you know that I know it and that that has nothing to do with what I asked you.
You implied that some ratio is low and that that somehow helps your argument against gun control but, when we take your sentence and try to find a clear, precise proposition in it, we end up with nonsense. I suspect you've already realised this, which is why you keep on dodging the question.
You asked about the ration and I explained several times that it is the number of cops to the number of guns that need to be collected or confiscated. I even stated instead of implying that there are to few cops to do the job. The cops are not removing the illegal guns from the streets until a crime is committed despite the fact there there are laws and regulations that permit them to do so. You do know that these laws exist I suppose. If that is too difficult to understand then I am at a loss about how to make it simpler.
Why not just admit you wrote something that made no sense? It's no big deal. We all do it quite frequently, especially me.
I think that you have been listening to S too much. The purpose of these type of forums is supposed to be educational, a place where you can express your ideas and read other peoples ideas. It is not about beating and bullying others into submission and trying to force them into admitting that they are wrong.
If you think my idea is incorrect them it is up to you to present your case and prove it.
So please show me why my statement that there are not enough cops to solve the gun problem nor enough public support to do so is wrong. There is the challenge, either show me what is wrong or shut up.
I included his quote above yours. I addressed it to both of you, since he said it and you humoured him without addressing the elephant in the room.
And exactly what do you think the elephant was, maybe I did miss it. But I replied to the part I quoted and nothing else in his post, so I don't think that I was either humoring him nor missing anything.
He said it would hat it would be alright to shoot anyone with a gun and I asked who would do the shooting.
End of topic, nothing missed.
No, you just don't like it when I correctly identify an error in one of your replies, although I was basically beaten to the punch by andrewk when he said that you didn't answer the question.
No, you were just hitching a ride on someone else's white horse. You saw someone pointing out a supposed error and you jumped on the band wagon. A common practice of yours.
If you and andrewk are incapable of understanding them I am sorry for you both.
Now, if you believe what you say then explain the fallacies you named as they apply to my post. I already know how you are going to respond, "LOOK IT UP YOURSELF". Because you have no idea how to do it..
Bring in tougher gun laws which can be enforced, and enforce them.
Say what? Talking about missing the point, and here we have a good example. In every discussion you have said the same thing. Could you be specific in exactly what those laws would be? And how they would apply to all of the illegal weapons?
And I can probably guess your answer to this as well, "I am not a law maker". So what enforceable laws would you, as a thinking individual person, like to see put into the law books?
No, it's about being observant to the behavior and opinions of common people around you. If you want to know more about how things are being discussed outside of your own small group of friends and relatives you need to act like an anthropologist and really look and listen to how people are.
I have a very small, 5 people, group of friends. I have 2 other family members. And we do discuss world problems of every kind, even though I am the only one that participates in a philosophy forum. But I work with hundreds of people everyday. Most of them seem perfectly capable of talking about the problems of the world as well. So I still don't understand why you think that non-philosophy forum people do not have the tools necessary to think about such things.
This does not answer the question, I asked how gun control qualifies as a philosophical question, not which area of philosophy would possible put it into.
Have you ever met anyone outside of philosophy who can do a proper dialectic?
I have not asked anyone whether they can do a proper dialectic. But as you are making this statement about the non-philosophically inclined people's incapability, I am sure that you have asked everyone you have ever met in your anthropological wanderings and all of the parties you have ever attended. Because that is the only way to know such things that I am aware of.
Most discussions about sensitive topics always end up in brawls with each side always saying their opinion and no one reaching a higher level of understanding. It's exactly because of the lack of dialectic tools. But you don't seem to know much about these things?
Actually I doubt that most of the people here on the forum are philosophy students or have a degree in philosophy. I can think of several members whom I know of that do not.
While knowledge of the use of dialectic tools is useful to argue successfully, it is useless in the face of ignorance. If you know nothing about the topic, there is no use for these tools.
Seriously, do you think that the common people have not realized that there is a problem with guns? They know well enough that there is. It is not the lack of these tools that stops them from doing something about it, but the lack of methods that can be used. They vote for the people that they want to represent them and the ones that propose removing the guns lose. They protest in the streets and get arrested because, as you say it turns into a brawl.
You say that you have the use of these tools, what are you going to do to solve the problem?
It might be more evident in my country, but here are some hints
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/mark-cuban-philosophy-degree-will-be-worth-more-than-computer-science.html
https://bigthink.com/experts-corner/why-future-business-leaders-need-philosophy
This does not qualify as proof of the statement you made.
[quote="Christoffer]Why do you think that philosophers have been gaining popularity as a hired consultant in many workplaces?[/quote]
The articles say that some people think that philosophy graduates might have a better career that others, but it makes no mention of them gaining popularity as a hired.
What's the point of hiring someone who has the answers to current problems if they cannot solve new ones further down the road?
It would get things going again without which there would be no new problems down the line because there would be no company.
But it would make sense to hire someone that could do both problem solving and preventative work. Unfortunately, "preventative" in industry usually means foreseeing possible problem and trying to prevent them, which would be almost impossible without the technological know how. I don't think many philosophy graduates would be able to predict possible week points in any system that they have no knowledge of.
You're acting like a child right now and it's probably not worth continuing this discussion when you seem incapable of being humble.
Oh dear. Is it my fault that you have nothing to contribute to the solving of the problem? I am not the one that sets myself above the common people nor do I claim to be a philosophy. I am just a humble thinker with opinions based on what I see and what I know. It would seem to be that you are the one covering up your inabilities with pompousness.
You know nothing about me, so who's actually sitting on a high horse, judging?
I can say exactly the same thing about you. You do not know me or what I have studied, but you presume to make statements about what I should do to improve my understanding of truth and the world.
And the funny thing is that I doubt that you have figured out the truth about the world and existence but here you are talking about gun control. Without providing a solution.
You erroneously equate "a solution" with a complete solution in full detail, ready and waiting to be implemented. People here have outlined the solution for you. Your expectations, as I've explained multiple times here, are unreasonable. We aren't all going to go off to gain the required expertise and then spend all the required time and dedication to produce some sort of Treatise On The Problem Of Firearms.
And exactly what do you think the elephant was, maybe I did miss it. But I replied to the part I quoted and nothing else in his post, so I don't think that I was either humoring him nor missing anything.
He said it would hat it would be alright to shoot anyone with a gun and I asked who would do the shooting.
End of topic, nothing missed.
I don't recall him saying anything about this hat which you mention. But I do recall him saying something about shooting armed criminals, which seems to be jumping ahead without justification. You addressed what he said on his own terms, taking into account the whole shooting armed criminals thing, whereas I challenged it.
Say what? Talking about missing the point, and here we have a good example. In every discussion you have said the same thing. Could you be specific in exactly what those laws would be? And how they would apply to all of the illegal weapons?
And I can probably guess your answer to this as well, "I am not a law maker". So what enforceable laws would you, as a thinking individual person, like to see put into the law books?
It makes sense to be specific when there's a need to be, and when there's a reasonable expectation for the specificity at the level you suggest. I doubt that you've fulfilled this criteria.
I would like to see those enforceable laws for which there is evidence of them working be put into the law books and enforced. Evidence of these laws working has been given in this discussion. That you might discount the evidence is not that it hasn't been given, nor is it that it's right to discount it.
You erroneously equate "a solution" with a complete solution in full detail, ready and waiting to be implemented. People here have outlined the solution for you. Your expectations, as I've explained multiple times here, are unreasonable. We aren't all going to go off to gain the required expertise and then spend all the required time and dedication to produce some sort of Treatise On The Problem Of Firearms.
I have never said that I have any expectations, I have simply asked for people to present their solutions.
So far all of the solutions have amounted to "create laws and enforce them". When I have pointed out that there are laws and the problems with enforcing them you and others like you get uppity. If you do not want to discuss this like a rational person, why the hell do you keep sticking your nose in.
Is it possibly that you keep posting simply because you want to add more posts to you status, that you tie in with your continuous use of multiple posts in a row instead of combining them in to one as would seem the logical thing to do.
Naive - adjective
Marked by or showing unaffected simplicity and lack of guile or worldly experience
Inexperienced
Lacking information or instruction
Not initiated; deficient in relevant experience
Please tell me how any of those meaning can be applied to describe a question, which is an abstract. I have never met a question that has worldly experience or experience of any kind for that matter, so in that sense all questions would be naive. I have never read a question that lacks information or instruction. How would you initiate a question or show its deficiency in experience?
A person can be naive for asking a question, but even school kids know that this adjective cannot be applied to a question.
I don't recall him saying anything about this hat which you mention.
Congratulations. that is the first one you have found out of six. You must be getting desperate to make me look bad so that you can "win". When you have nothing worth while or relevant to say you always start picking on people's typo's, grammar and spelling.
But I do recall him saying something about shooting armed criminals, which seems to be jumping ahead without justification. You addressed what he said on his own terms, taking into account the whole shooting armed criminals thing, whereas I challenged it.
In what way did I address him on his own terms? All I did was ask who was going to do the shooting, there was nothing there to challenge. If anything I was pointing out the folly of what he said.
I would like to see those enforceable laws for which there is evidence of them working be put into the law books and enforced.
Did you think about this before you wrote it?
If there are enforceable laws that have been proven to be effective then there would be no need to put them into the law books because they are already there. sounds like gobble de goop to me.
Evidence of these laws working has been given in this discussion. Evidence of these laws working has been given in this discussion. That you might discount the evidence is not that it hasn't been given, nor is it that it's right to discount it.
And it was pointed out that what works well in one place will not always work in another. The same applies to baking cakes, it is different at sea level that when you are on top of a mountain. That you cannot see these difference or cannot understand how they apply to the different situations is your problem. And it is not right to discount other peoples' way of thinking just because they do not agree with your narrow minded, ignorant, inexperienced way of thinking.
Keep on look for the easter eggs, I left several here for you're enjoyment.
Did you think about this before you wrote it? If there are enforceable laws that have been proven to be effective then there would be no need to put them into the law books because they are already there. sounds like gobble de goop to me.
Yes, I did. Did you think about [I]that[/I] before you typed and submitted it? Surely you must know a thing or two about the obstacles against legislating and enforcing laws for which there is good evidence that they're effective? In the USA, there's the Republican Party, the NRA, lobbyists, the rampant gun culture...
And it was pointed out that what works well in one place will not always work in another. The same applies to baking cakes, it is different at sea level that when you are on top of a mountain. That you cannot see these difference or cannot understand how they apply to the different situations is your problem. And it is not right to discount other peoples' way of thinking just because they do not agree with your narrow minded, ignorant, inexperienced way of thinking.
Yeah, I remember your line of argument, and replies have been given to that, too. Recently, for instance, by Christopher. In short, act to make the conditions right, then act to change the law or the ways in which it is enforced or both.
You asked about the ration and I explained several times that it is the number of cops to the number of guns that need to be collected or confiscated.
No you didn't. That is the first time you have proposed that as an answer to my question, or that you have even mentioned the word 'ratio' in your replies. Further, the ratio you mention in this quote is one of object counts (numbers of police and number of guns), not events (crimes and attendances at crimes) which is what your original claim that I dispute was about.
If you want to drop your original rhetorical flourish about police not preventing crime and instead focus on an argument about there being too few police to enforce a government gun acquisition program, by all means do so. There are complex issues to discuss in that direction. But saying that that your claim about police attending crime scenes was making that point falls flat. Quoting Sir2u
It is not about beating and bullying others into submission and trying to force them into admitting that they are wrong.
I am sorry that you feel bullied. I am not aware of having written anything that was bullying, but if I have you need only point it out and I will delete it and apologise. Quoting Sir2u
there was probably never any guns to get rid of
No. Read about the Australian gun buy-back here. There is plenty of room for a discussion about the differences between the pre-1996 Australian situation and the current US situation, and the effect those differences have on the viability of applying the same strategy to the US, but suggesting there were no guns to be confiscated forms no part of that. Approximately 650,000 guns were collected and destroyed.
Surely you must know a thing or two about the obstacles against legislating and enforcing laws for which there is good evidence that they're effective? In the USA, there's the Republic Party, the NRA, lobbyists, the rampant gun culture...
What has this got to do with anything? If it is already a law that is enforceable why would there be any problems anywhere, or with anyone.
Let me re-state your mistake.
An enforceable law should be added to to the law books is basically what you said.
But if it is an enforceable law then it is already a law and therefore there is no need for it to be added to the law book again.
Ah, I see. So you were merely being pedantic, and your point was trivial, and you either misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted what I was saying.
I meant what would be a proposed enforceable law in the country for which I would want it added to the law books. It would already be an enforceable law elsewhere. That's where the evidence comes from.
No you didn't. That is the first time you have proposed that as an answer to my question, or that you have even mentioned the word 'ratio' in your replies.
Oh dear, I really must be losing my mind. I am so sure that I had posted all of those things below.
You asked about the ration and I explained several times that it is the number of cops to the number of guns that need to be collected or confiscated. I even stated instead of implying that there are to few cops to do the job.
So who is going to shoot them if no one else is carrying a gun? And please don't answer the cops, because everyone knows there are hundreds of illegal guns for each cop.
Just shooting anyone with a gun would not work because there are not enough people to do the job. Each cop would have to find and shoot several hundred bad guys.
The ratio you keep on about I think is maybe something that I did not hint at but is implicit in what I said, lots of guns and very few cops. But I am sure that I had already said that.
The fact that other people obviously understood and pointed out what I said leaves me thinking that you do not understand English very well.
I think he means the ratio of "good guys with guns to bad guys with guns".
Do I really have to mention that these are ratios, when you are the one that pointed out that I seemed to be implying something like that. I took it for granted that you knew how to read.
Further, the ratio you mention in this quote is one of object counts (numbers of police and number of guns), not events (crimes and attendances at crimes) which is what your original claim that I dispute was about.
You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed — Sir2u
You seem to be hinting at some sort of ratio being low. What ratio do you have in mind? There is no obvious ratio that makes sense, given the above sentence.
Maybe I hinted incorrectly or not at all, just your imagination, or maybe you understood incorrectly. Who knows. What is obvious is that the cops nearly always arrive after a crime has been committed because there are not enough to have them just standing around waiting for a crime to happen.
If you want to drop your original rhetorical flourish about police not preventing crime ......................................................... But saying that that your claim about police attending crime scenes was making that point falls flat.
My original statement stands until someone can prove it to be false. Which you certainly have no way of doing.
Be careful using "that that" in sentences, S gets upset and pulls out his dictionary and some webpages about it.
and instead focus on an argument about there being too few police to enforce a government gun acquisition program, by all means do so. There are complex issues to discuss in that direction.
I have already made a statement about my thoughts on gun crime prevention, but I would have to give some thought to the idea of cops not being able to enforce gun acquisition programs. Exactly what are these programs supposed to do.
I am sorry that you feel bullied. I am not aware of having written anything that was bullying, but if I have you need only point it out and I will delete it and apologise.
Oh, I don't feel bullied at all, I was just commenting on your style. It seems to be heading in the same direction as S. Comments like the one below tend to show the writer's inability to provide proper answers to the questions more than the inability of the one it is being written to.
No. Read about the Australian gun buy-back here. There is plenty of room for a discussion about the differences between the pre-1996 Australian situation and the current US situation, and the effect those differences have on the viability of applying the same strategy to the US, but suggesting there were no guns to be confiscated forms no part of that. Approximately 650,000 guns were collected and destroyed.
"The 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA), passed in response tothe April 28, 1996 Port Arthur, Tasmania massacre of 35 people, banned semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns, bought back more than 650,000 of these weapons from existing owners, and tightened requirements for licensing, registration, and safe storage of firearms. The buyback is estimated to have reduced the number of guns in private hands by 20%, and, by some estimates, almost halved the number of gun-owning households."
Just over half a million guns BOUGHT back. It is estimated that there are more than 350 million guns in the USA.
Do you still think the comparison is valid?All of this has been proposed already. and no one has come up with an idea to put it into effect.
Who is going to authorize the purchase of these guns at a value that would make it worth while to turn it in? Count each one at about $10, that is a lot of tax payers money to be spent. And most of the owners of the guns spent much more buying the guns and are not going to be happy that their money is used for this instead of helping the already screwed up educational and health systems.
As to the effectiveness of this, even they are not sure whether it made any difference.
"This issue of Bulletins reviews the evidence on the effect of the NFA on firearm deaths. There have not been any studies examining the effect of the buyback on crime other than homicide. Some scientists believed that the buyback might reduce firearm crime, but most saw no reason to expect that it would significantly affect non-firearm crime.Most crimes in Australia before the NFA did not involve firearms, and few Australians owned handguns or carried them on their person, either before or after the buyback. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that after the buyback, the percentage of robberies where the assailant used a firearm did drop significantly. There was little change in “unlawful entry with intent,” one of the few types of crime where one might make a case for a possible deterrent effect of having a gun in the home."
https://americangunfacts.com/
Gun Ownership Vs Crime, an international perspective
I live in the #1 spot on the international side of the diagram. I own and sometimes carry a weapon, I have fired a couple of times as a deterrent and I am happy to be here writing today because of this.
Ah, I see. So you were merely being pedantic,and your point was trivial
No, I was not being pedantic, I leave stuff like that to you. And the point was not trivial, it is not my fault that you cannot express clearly what you want to say.
, and you either misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted what I was saying.
Neither of those, you wrote something that did not make sense and I pointed it out to you.Quoting S
I meant what would be a proposed enforceable law in the country for which I would want it added to the law books. It would already be an enforceable law elsewhere. That's where the evidence comes from.
OK, so it was your inability to make your ideas clear. You should try harder to write what you mean, I remember you telling me that so many times.
You wrote the following in response to my saying that your direct reply to my question about a ratio in the post to which I was responding was the first time you had directly addressed my question and mentioned 'ratio': Quoting Sir2u
I am so sure that I had posted all of those things below....
yet the only one of the 'things below' that mentioned 'ratio' was the one that I had already said was the first time you did it, and none of them related to the disputed claim about attendance at crime scenes.
Could you just remind me exactly what accusations you were making about attempted bullying? Quoting Sir2u
My original statement stands until someone can prove it to be false.
As you know, that's not how things work on a philosophy forum. The onus is on the person making a claim to justify it. Quoting Sir2u
Be careful using "that that" in sentences, S gets upset and pulls out his dictionary and some webpages about it.
In the instance to which you are referring, my use of 'that that ' was a mistake. I was careless when typing that sentence. I either didn't notice that I had typed the word twice, or I did but mixed it up with a sentence a few lines earlier where the doubling was used intentionally and correctly.
It appears that it is actually not at all painful to admit that one is wrong sometimes.
You wrote the following in response to my saying that your direct reply to my question about a ratio in the post to which I was responding was the first time you had directly addressed my question and mentioned 'ratio':
I am so sure that I had posted all of those things below.... — Sir2u
yet the only one of the 'things below' that mentioned 'ratio' was the one that I had already said was the first time you did it.
You kept insisting that I had hinted at a ratio, so I highlighted all of the hints. It should be obvious if others managed to figure it out. As I asked, was it really necessary to mention the word ratio before a smart person like you figured it out.
As you know, that's not how things work on a philosophy forum. The onus is on the person making a claim to justify it.
I have given any and all of the reasons why I think what I do, I think that I have justified the way I think adequately. But that is not what I am talking about, you keep insisting that I am wrong and claiming in a non bullying way that I am naive.
So it is up to you to provide the reasons why I am wrong.
As you say, if you make a statement the onus is on you to prove it. So go ahead and prove that anything that I have said is false. Or as you and S are fond of saying just admit that you cannot do it.
In the instance to which you are referring, my use of 'that that ' was a mistake. I was careless when typing that sentence. I either didn't notice that I had typed the word twice, or I did but mixed it up with a sentence a few lines earlier where the doubling was used intentionally and correctly.
Yes, I know. It happens all the time. But some people around here think that is reason enough to call you out and say that you need to go back to school and learn some grammar. I know because it has happened to me on several occasions. that is why I warned you to be careful.
It appears that it is actually not at all painful to admit that one is wrong sometimes.
So explain to me why I am wrong and I will follow your example.
unforeseenFebruary 25, 2019 at 00:10#2590880 likes
An armed society is a normal society. Society without arms don’t last very long.
But whether we elect a few people to do the actual arm bearing, or whether each of us are made to bear them ourselves personally, which in my opinion, and that of many others, most others I should say, is tedious, risky, economically redundant, and a terrible burden, is apparently a matter of debate.
I personally have to go against the argument and say that an armed society is not any more polite than an unarmed one, and such business is best left to the state and mercenaries, while we citizens indulge in higher activities like art and philosophy.
An armed society is a normal society. Society without arms don’t last very long.
But whether we elect a few people to do the actual arm bearing, or whether each of us are made to bear them ourselves personally, which in my opinion, and that of many others, most others I should say, is tedious, risky, economically redundant, and a terrible burden, is apparently a matter of debate.
I personally have to go against the argument and say that an armed society is not any more polite than an unarmed one, and such business is best left to the state and mercenaries, while we citizens indulge in higher activities like art and philosophy.
I totally agree with you, to each their own and good luck with the choices you make.
But you forgot to add drinking and loving to the activities.
An armed society is a normal society. Society without arms don’t last very long.
This looks like trolling, but perhaps you're just not being clear. With regard to firearms, the United Kingdom is not generally an armed society. Our citizens, criminals, and police are generally unarmed in that respect. And yet, since this has been the case, we've stuck around, and it is no coincidence that gun crime is exceptionally low here in comparison with other places, and there's no good reason to believe that we won't last very long as a result of these circumstances. That's balderdash.
If this makes us an abnormal society, then so be it. If only more were abnormal in this way, a lot of lives would be saved. Abnormal should become normal.
I wasn't sure you were being serious with that question. Did you genuinely not see what I did there? Or are you just yanking my chain because my sentence was incomplete, and you think that pointing things like that out to me is a good way to troll me?
With regard to firearms, the United Kingdom is not generally an armed society. Our citizens, criminals, and police are generally unarmed in that respect. And yet, since this has been the case, we've stuck around, and it is no coincidence that gun crime is exceptionally low here in comparison with other places, and there's no good reason to believe that we won't last very long as a result of these circumstances. That's balderdash.
But the UK is the violent crime center of Europe, even beating the USA.
https://americangunfacts.com/
If these do not seem real, you can verify the data through the sources they provide at the bottom of the page.
I wasn't sure you were being serious with that question. Did you genuinely not see what I did there?
Have I ever asked you a question that I did not expect you to take seriously?
Yes I saw what you did. You made a senseless comment that has no value just to add another post to your 7.7 list of crappy posts.
Or are you just yanking my chain because my sentence was incomplete?
There is only one reason that I ever yank the chain, unfortunately that option is not available in the virtual world even though it is so desperately needed.
unforeseenFebruary 25, 2019 at 01:05#2591180 likes
Reply to S
Here I ought to remind you of the not-so-long ago history of two world wars, Cold War, postcolonism wars, opium war, famine-ridden British raj in India, the systematic destruction of the African continent, the Middle East, and so on and so forth. How much does it cost the state to keep out all the refugees from wars and the poor?
You lock the main gate and leave the room doors open, rather than locking the room doors and leaving the main gate open. Because the real enemy (the poor) is outside and in much larger numbers.
But the UK is the violent crime center of Europe, even beating the USA.
https://americangunfacts.com/
If these do not seem real, you can verify the data through the sources they provide at the bottom of the page.
I suspected that your link would be dodgy. And guess what? It is. It contains a statistic that the much more credible fact checking website PolitiFact rates as false.
If these do not seem real, you can verify the data through the sources they provide at the bottom of the page.
The figures may or may not be accurate. We don't know. But we do know that the sources are anything but impartial.
The two sources listed in the footnote of the 'we love guns!' site in the link are just news articles in the Daily Telegraph, a UK paper with links to the Tory party. Further, the articles report that the statistics were compiled by Tory MPs in order to help their attacks against the then-Labour government. The article claims the statistical sources from which the Tories compiled their figures were an EU statistical agency, but no reference is given to a specific source at that agency, or to any other source.
The articles also report that the Home Secretary of the time vigorously rejected the figures.
Finally, regardless of whether the figures are fair representations of the EU figures and those from other countries like USA (no source provided), or just made up for the sake of political point-scoring, are ten years old.
I am surprised at myself that I continue to be surprised that people believe controversial claims they read on heavily partisan websites, without bothering to follow the chain of references (if any) to see if they lead to anything other than just more partisan sources.
Here I ought to remind you of the not-so-long ago history of two world wars, Cold War, postcolonism wars, opium war, famine-ridden British raj in India, the systematic destruction of the African continent, the Middle East, and so on and so forth. How much does it cost the state to keep out all the refugees from wars and the poor?
You lock the main gate and leave the room doors open, rather than locking the room doors and leaving the main gate open. Because the real enemy (the poor) is outside and in much larger numbers.
What has any of that got to do with firearms in peacetime? Now I definitely think you're a troll.
Wait. Are you Tom, Inis, sock puppets, etc? You are, aren't you?
unforeseenFebruary 25, 2019 at 01:37#2591270 likes
History has everything to do with the present. In fact, is it only history that has anything to do with the present. Simple case of causes and effects.
unforeseenFebruary 25, 2019 at 01:43#2591290 likes
And no I’m not whoever you’re thinking I am. To your speculation about whether I’m trolling, please be advised that such things depends more on one’s perspective than the original intention. Do you always feel like people are trolling? If yes, then I must be. Fishes probably think they’re flying instead of swimming, because under water is where they live and die. Hahahaha.
I am surprised at myself that I continue to be surprised that people believe controversial claims they read on heavily partisan websites, without bothering to follow the chain of references (if any) to see if they lead to anything other than just more partisan sources.
I know right? I doubt that I would do that to begin with, but if I did, and then I got exposed, I think I'd be really embarrassed, and would quickly learn not to make the same mistake again.
I suspected that your link would be dodgy. And guess what? It is. It contains a statistic that the much more credible fact checking website PolitiFact rates as false.
Thank you for presenting this, did you read the last paragraph.
"Our ruling
The meme said "there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the U.K.," compared to "466 violent crimes per 100,000" in the United States. Our preliminary attempt to make an apples-to-apples comparison shows a much smaller difference in violent crime rates between the two countries, but criminologists say differences in how the statistics are collected make it impossible to produce a truly valid comparison. We rate the claim False."
It is still higher than the USA, although I have to admit that anyone that believed the data to be accurate and unbiased would have to be crazy.
But actually a lot of it does check out, if you remember the time I showed you the FBI data base and several other links to accurate data that were basically the same.
What is really interesting though is the way violent crimes is on the rise right now. It must be bloody awful with all of those mask scooter riders running around with knives killing people everyday. Is the a reason for this?
Just a couple of questions I would like to ask about the PolitiFact web site. How do you know that it is a truly unbiased opinion that they are giving? Most of the work is done by people on newspapers payrolls.
Why do you think they only deal with politicians? Don't doctors, engineers and people on the street also make ridiculous statements?
I don't expect answers, it was just a couple of things that came to mind.
The figures may or may not be accurate. We don't know. But we do know that the sources are anything but impartial.
The two sources listed in the footnote of the 'we love guns!' site in the link are just news articles in the Daily Telegraph, a UK paper with links to the Tory party. Further, the articles report that the statistics were compiled by Tory MPs in order to help their attacks against the then-Labour government. The article claims the statistical sources from which the Tories compiled their figures were an EU statistical agency, but no reference to a specific source of that agency is given, or to any other source.
As you say we do not know. But it begs the quest "Why on earth would the Tories be trying to convince people that England was more violent than the USA?". Any ideas?
Finally, regardless of whether the figures are fair representations of the EU figures and those from other countries like USA (no source provided), or just made up for the sake of political point-scoring, are ten years old.
And we all know how greatly things have improved since then don't we? From what I read on the BBC things are getting worse all the time. Maybe people there will start buying guns to protect themselves. It has been report that illegal attempts to import arms has risen, I wonder what the percentage of the actual imports being caught is.
Reply to Sir2u Note that I never even denied that the UK has a higher rate of violent crime in comparison with the US. Although that doesn't mean that I accept it either. Like the article says, and as experts in this field say, it's impossible to produce a truly valid comparison.
The credibility of PolitiFact can be looked into online through other fact checking websites, like Media Bias / Fact Check, which rates it as least biased.
I've addressed your point about knife crime about a million times. Gun shot wounds are on average more deadly (which is both common sense and supported by statistics I linked to many, many pages back), so the risk is more severe, and the law reflects that, as do priorities in hospitals.
"I am surprised at myself that I continue to be surprised that people believe controversial claims they read on heavily partisan websites, without bothering to follow the chain of references (if any) to see if they lead to anything other than just more partisan sources. — andrewk
Now that is strange, I am beginning to believe in parallel universes. I clicked on the link in S's post
to where andrewk posted this and it is not there. :gasp:
I know right? I doubt that I would do that to begin with, but if I did, and then I got exposed, I think I'd be really embarrassed, and would quickly learn not to make the same mistake again.
I doubt that you would post anything similar to that as well, you don't have enough imagination to provoke thought in others. If I had posted a link to the FBI you would not have answered. And this way you provide the evidence that crime is higher in the UK so everyone has to believe it.
I doubt that you would be embarrassed either, it has happened to you before despite all of your mistakes and you have still not learned from them.
The credibility of PolitiFact can be looked into online through other fact checking websites, like Media Bias / Fact Check, which rates it as least biased.
And who checks their reliability?
But you have just got to love them for the footnote below the ads.
"Ads do not necessarily reflect the views of MBFC"
I've addressed your point about knife crime a million times. Gun shot wounds are more deadly, so the risk is more severe, and the law reflects that, as do priorities in hospitals.
Yes I know. Knife wounds take up hospital space and doctor and nurse's hours and cost a lot to fix as just like gun wounds. I don't think that there is much difference between a machete wound to the stomach and a bullet wound in the same place, and it seems the people die from both.
I don't think that there is much difference between a machete wound to the stomach and a bullet wound in the same place, and it seems the people die from both.
Your opinion as a layperson doesn't have the slightest impact, and you can't even stay on point, just like in your exchange with andrewk. I specifically brought up gun crime, and you changed the subject to violent crime, followed by your dodgy link. Then I made a point about averages, and you don't mirror that back in your reply, so it's unclear whether you're talking about averages or only specific cases, which in turn means it's unclear whether you're plain wrong or wrong by way of logical irrelevance. And to top it off, you finish with a complete irrelevancy about people dying from both, which is obvious and which no one denied.
But it begs the quest "Why on earth would the Tories be trying to convince people that England was more violent than the USA?". Any ideas?
As the article and my post make quite clear, they used it to attack the then-government (Labour) in an attempt to make them lose the upcoming election - which they did, but not because of that issue. Quoting Sir2u
And we all know how greatly things have improved since then don't we?
No I don't. I have no statistics and none have been produced in this thread that I have seen. So all I have to go on are impressions: I was in the UK a year ago and it seemed to me to be more peaceful and prosperous than it was when I was last there, in 2007.
I specifically brought up gun crime, and you changed the subject to violent crime,
No, unforeseen said that armed societies are normal. And that started another line of discussion.
You implied that the UK was a great place to live and that it would last forever even without guns. Or something along those lines anyway.
I said that the UK is the violent crime capital of Europe and even beats the US.
You said that was false.
I commented that it must be awful living in the UK with all of those knife crimes
Then you said that you had addressed those things before as if I had asked a question or made some sort of incredible statement about knife crime. I just made a comment about something that you can read about in the newspapers everyday, and they do appear to be happening more and more. And lots of those people that have been stabbed appear to have died. Unfortunately, or maybe I should say fortunately there are not many gun crimes in the UK to compare the survival rate to.
As the article and my post make quite clear, they used it to attack the then-government (Labour) in an attempt to make them lose the upcoming election - which they did, but not because of that issue.
I think that I have to apologize here, I really did not make my self clear on that point. Yes, you stated that they were trying to win an election and they used that as a weapon for that purpose.
But what I was after in my question was why would they use something as awful as telling the world that England is a dangerous place to win.
Surely they must have seen that they would do damage to everyone, including themselves. Did they even think about what might happen if tourists began to avoid dangerous England? What about international trade and investment. That is one of the biggest issues where I live right now, no one wants to bring money here because of violent crime.
Reply to Sir2u :smile: Yes it's amazing how destructive and disloyal to their country some politicians can be when trying to win power. We have that here at the moment. The opposition helped pass a bill, against the government's wishes, to allow seriously ill people in offshore immigration detention centres to come to Australia for treatment. The government, who claim the sole reason for their very harsh treatment of asylum seekers is to discourage people from setting out in boats from Indonesia to try to get here, is now blaring out to anybody who will listen that the passing of the bill has now made it easy for people-smugglers to get people into our country.
Firstly it's not true and secondly, even if it were, the last thing that should be done is advertise it to people smugglers.
All because they want to try to win a looming election by c;aiming to be 'tougher on illegal immigrants'.
:sad:
ChristofferFebruary 26, 2019 at 15:01#2594910 likes
I have a very small, 5 people, group of friends. I have 2 other family members. And we do discuss world problems of every kind, even though I am the only one that participates in a philosophy forum. But I work with hundreds of people everyday. Most of them seem perfectly capable of talking about the problems of the world as well. So I still don't understand why you think that non-philosophy forum people do not have the tools necessary to think about such things.
Because regular people don't generally understand the concept of a dialectic discussion, they see any discussion between two opinions as an argument without end since both sides just clash without understanding the other or the self. It's also a ground for meta-ignorance. This is why I numerous times doubt your insight into philosophy since you never demonstrate that philosophical process in your writing.
I am beginning to believe that "naive" is your word of the week. And I don't see how your route is realistic.
Because you demand absolute solutions to very very complex problems. That is almost a textbook answer of what naive is. The "solution" I described involved the very realistic idea of educating people into supporting strict gun laws through democracy. You either go by a totalitarian state-regulation to just ban guns, or you work with the people so that they understand the problems and understand why it's good for them as well. If you have any other solution beside enforcing change and planting seeds for change, feel free to express it, but if you want simple answers, that is the naive route.
This does not answer the question, I asked how gun control qualifies as a philosophical question, not which area of philosophy would possible put it into.
Because it has to do with philosophical discussions around justice and ethics, two of the biggest topics in philosophy. Why is it not a philosophical question to have a discourse around that topic? Please elaborate on why it does not qualify.
I have not asked anyone whether they can do a proper dialectic. But as you are making this statement about the non-philosophically inclined people's incapability, I am sure that you have asked everyone you have ever met in your anthropological wanderings and all of the parties you have ever attended. Because that is the only way to know such things that I am aware of.
Can you write any text without having an asshole tone to them? Without a dialectical approach, there are only opinions, often with a meta-ignorant problem underneath. People might have heard the word dialectic, but how many can have a dialectic discussion? How many discussions have you heard between people which ended in both sides improving their own ideas or come to the conclusion that the other was right? I mean, truly changing for both sides?
Actually I doubt that most of the people here on the forum are philosophy students or have a degree in philosophy. I can think of several members whom I know of that do not.
Of course, most don't have a degree in philosophy. But without any insight into philosophy, what is even the point of being on this forum? I mean, to read is good, but to participate in discussions without being humble about their own knowledge in philosophy and instead rage on with pure speculative opinions, fallacies and biases, is to a degree not even recommended by the forum guidelines. If there's no effort to even learn some basic philosophy, why even bother? Then Twitter is probably a better platform for such rants.
While knowledge of the use of dialectic tools is useful to argue successfully, it is useless in the face of ignorance. If you know nothing about the topic, there is no use for these tools.
Seriously, do you think that the common people have not realized that there is a problem with guns? They know well enough that there is. It is not the lack of these tools that stops them from doing something about it, but the lack of methods that can be used. They vote for the people that they want to represent them and the ones that propose removing the guns lose. They protest in the streets and get arrested because, as you say it turns into a brawl.
You say that you have the use of these tools, what are you going to do to solve the problem?
Dialectics leads to a better understanding of your own opinions and others. It's a tool to let people reach better conclusions and be less influenced by people with the power of persuasion.
You suggest methods to be used, what methods are there in your argument, which brings forth a change without restricting democracy and liberty of the people?
The articles say that some people think that philosophy graduates might have a better career that others, but it makes no mention of them gaining popularity as a hired.
It would get things going again without which there would be no new problems down the line because there would be no company.
But it would make sense to hire someone that could do both problem solving and preventative work. Unfortunately, "preventative" in industry usually means foreseeing possible problem and trying to prevent them, which would be almost impossible without the technological know how. I don't think many philosophy graduates would be able to predict possible week points in any system that they have no knowledge of.
It's a cultural difference then since observations in my country are that companies and industries increasingly have pushed for philosophy training in leaders and philosophers consulting during problems, rather than just trying to figure things out themselves. It means they frame the problem the company is facing through the lens of philosophy in order to foreshadow the consequences of the solutions to the problems. They're also educating employees, especially in the tech industry and A.I.
I don't think many philosophy graduates would be able to predict possible week points in any system that they have no knowledge of.
That are not the problems I'm talking about. But for example, figuring out the ethics of gun laws require quite a lot of philosophy in order to give a nuanced perspective to politicians and the people. If a problem touches upon philosophical problems, why would those questions be left to those who work with systems to solve? It's like calling a plumber to fix the roof.
I have made no demands, I asked you how you would solve a problem and you have no answer.
Because you don't have an answer, I don't, no one really has, which is my point. It's a philosophical dialectic with the aim of finding a solution. My suggestion was given and you demand absolutes instead. You are demanding something without any real interest in the discourse. If someone doesn't give an absolute solution to something you seem to interpret that as a disqualification of the specific participant on the topic. I gave you a possible solution, you have answered nothing on the validity of the causational consequences of that solution and instead demand an absolute solution. It's once again, naive and almost childish as a demand.
Oh dear. Is it my fault that you have nothing to contribute to the solving of the problem? I am not the one that sets myself above the common people nor do I claim to be a philosophy.
I do not set myself higher than common people, I stated a fact that common people don't have dialectic methods to discuss something in order to reach a higher understanding of their own opinions. That is a simple epistemic fact which would be ridiculous to counter without proposing that common people would automatically know it without studying it. It's almost a populistic idea and anti-intellectual, the kind of dismissal of knowledge that's been plaguing the world more and more the last ten years.
I am just a humble thinker with opinions based on what I see and what I know. It would seem to be that you are the one covering up your inabilities with pompousness.
You are pretty far from being humble. You should really calm down and take a look at your own writing before judging others. The critique against you does not being until you behave in a certain way, the causality of this is pretty straight forward. You judge others all the time and you mock the knowledge they provide with inadequate reasoning and pure speculative opinions. The response you get probably reflect the writing you do more than all the other people and their knowledge.
I can say exactly the same thing about you. You do not know me or what I have studied, but you presume to make statements about what I should do to improve my understanding of truth and the world.
You write about philosophical tools and methods of dialectic like you have no idea what you are talking about. So, I draw a conclusion based on how you actually write. And since your attitude is extremely impolite towards others that might have more knowledge in this area, I would say you solidified that notion. So, no you can't say the same thing to me because I actually try to answer, you are just defending your own ego with mocking and ridiculing other people.
So, either you demonstrate that you have an understanding of the things discussed and prove me wrong when I suggest you study more, or just stop with your tu quoque fallacies. You attitude at the moment is the evidence in itself of my statement.
Because regular people don't generally understand the concept of a dialectic discussion, they see any discussion between two opinions as an argument without end since both sides just clash without understanding the other or the self. It's also a ground for meta-ignorance. This is why I numerous times doubt your insight into philosophy since you never demonstrate that philosophical process in your writing.
What proof do you have that ordinary people, without a degree in philosophy, cannot understand the concept of a dialectic discussion. Through out history people have been doing this with absolutely no formal education. The way you talk it is as if these abilities are something that developed because of colleges. Lots of the greatest philosopher had little or no education at all. Thinking is something that can be and is developed by anyone that wants to develop their abilities and is possible without out going to the university. That is the BS of the universities sell so that you will pay their exorbitant fees.
Because you demand absolute solutions to very very complex problems.
It is a good idea to read all of the thread if you want to participate properly. I have not, as I explained to someone else, made any demands. You stated what you think was the solution and I pointed out some of the problems with your idea.
You either go by a totalitarian state-regulation to just ban guns, or you work with the people so that they understand the problems and understand why it's good for them as well.
Both of which have been discussed at length, the former idea causes too many problems and would be expensive. The latter is a long term project that would not fulfill today's needs.
If you have any other solution beside enforcing change and planting seeds for change, feel free to express it, but if you want simple answers, that is the naive route.
That s the only solution that I have ever offered, educate the people. But as I said earlier it will not work until the people have a reason to give up their guns. By reason I mean that possibly the feel safe without them, when do you think that will happen?
Because it has to do with philosophical discussions around justice and ethics
For some that claims to be so superior at thinking, that is very badly expressed. It has nothing to do with philosophical discussion around justice and ethics.
Let me help you to express it in a clearer way.
Because gun control has elements of MORALITY and ethics it can be discussed philosophically.
Can you write any text without having an asshole tone to them?
Well I suppose I could try imitating your dickhead tone, but I don't think that I have enough of a stuck up snobbish attitude to pull it off. But I will try if you want.
Without a dialectical approach, there are only opinions, often with a meta-ignorant problem underneath.
Wow, so your [s]opinions[/s] thoughts are correct because you use the dialectical approach. Where did you find all of the information that you used to come to these certified conclusions, I would love to see it. I think that you really need to go to the USA and offer you assistance in solving this problem. I don't think that they have anyone like you over there because this problem has been going on for years and years and no one has been able to come up with a solution.
People might have heard the word dialectic, but how many can have a dialectic discussion?
I don't know. I am not in the habit, as you seem to be, of testing everyone's ability to use their dialectic skills. How many times have you tried to have dialectic discussions with people in the street?
How many discussions have you heard between people which ended in both sides improving their own ideas or come to the conclusion that the other was right? I mean, truly changing for both sides?
Plenty, I work as a high school teacher. That is how we get kids to improve themselves sinse they took away our whips and bats.
Of course, most don't have a degree in philosophy. But without any insight into philosophy, what is even the point of being on this forum?
Well I could say that I am only here for the beer, but the pub closed with the old forum and I don't think anyone has figured out how to open a new one here.
I mean, to read is good, but to participate in discussions without being humble about their own knowledge in philosophy and instead rage on with pure speculative opinions, fallacies and biases, is to a degree not even recommended by the forum guidelines.
So you think that maybe if I quoted something from Socrates to support what I have said about gun control it would be more believable? Hmm, I will have to try that sometime. Or maybe if I continuously asked questions to provoke people to think but refused to admit I had any personal knowledge It would help my case. Reading about other peoples' way of thinking does not mean that you will be able to think like them. If that was the case I would be able to run circles around Witty.
While we are on the topic of peoples' knowledge about philosophy, did you ever figure out why those people came up with the idea that everything was made up of water?
It's a cultural difference then since observations in my country are that companies and industries increasingly have pushed for philosophy training in leaders and philosophers consulting during problems, rather than just trying to figure things out themselves. It means they frame the problem the company is facing through the lens of philosophy in order to foreshadow the consequences of the solutions to the problems. They're also educating employees, especially in the tech industry and A.I.
Before I start searching for my old degrees, could you show me where some of these place are. More than 20 years is enough in teaching. With 22 years in industry before that I might think about moving on.
That are not the problems I'm talking about. But for example, figuring out the ethics of gun laws require quite a lot of philosophy in order to give a nuanced perspective to politicians and the people.
So they are not solving problems but giving opinions on whether thing would be moral or not. Why has no one ever thought of doing this before?
If a problem touches upon philosophical problems, why would those questions be left to those who work with systems to solve? It's like calling a plumber to fix the roof.
True, but there are not that many moral problems, most of them are technical. Most development companies have legal department that deal with anything dodgy, Maybe that is where they would work.
Because you don't have an answer, I don't, no one really has, which is my point. It's a philosophical dialectic with the aim of finding a solution.
I never said I had an answer, at least not one that would work as needed, but I did point out that a lot of these things have been discussed before and I have given the reasons why I doubt they would not work. I was not demand absolute solutions, but with all of your superior dialectic prowess I thought that maybe you would be the one to come up with the right answer. Seems not to do so.
I gave you a possible solution, you have answered nothing on the validity of the consequences of that solution and instead demand an absolute solution. It's once again, naive and almost childish as a demand.
I do not set myself higher than common people, I stated a fact that common people don't have dialectic methods to discuss something in order to reach a higher understanding of their own opinions. That is a simple epistemic fact which would be ridiculous to counter without proposing that common people would automatically know it without studying it.
And a simple epistemic fact should be easy for you to prove, so go ahead and do it. But before you try answering think about the people that developed dialectic methods, where did they study? How did they come up with the ideas if it is not possible without education?
You are pretty far from being humble. You should really calm down and take a look at your own writing before judging others.
I never get excited by wishywashy discussions with people that think they are better than the rest just because they studied philosophy but know nothing of reality. Reality here is used in the sense of everydayness. But I do enjoy it when the fish are biting.
The critique against you does not being until you behave in a certain way, the causality of this is pretty straight forward.
I am not really sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that someone has been judging me because of my behavior? If that is so, that is not my problem and it is very unphilosophical to use this as an argument to prove that I am wrong.
You judge others all the time and you mock the knowledge they provide with inadequate reasoning and pure speculative opinions. The response you get probably reflect the writing you do more than all the other people and their knowledge.
I have not mocked you for any knowledge that you have provided, what ever knowledge that might be.
The response you get probably reflect the writing you do more than all the other people and their knowledge.
I get some very interesting responses from the people with interesting things to say. Especially those that don't take the time to write long post full of criticism.
You write about philosophical tools and methods of dialectic like you have no idea what you are talking about. So, I draw a conclusion based on how you actually write.
Never judge a book by its cover. I seriously doubt that you have read even half the number of philosophy books that I have. But I don't like to swagger around telling everyone that I know everything and common people don't.
And since your attitude is extremely impolite towards others that might have more knowledge in this area, I would say you solidified that notion.
Do unto others what they have done to you. You insulted most of humanity so don't cry when someone tell you that you do not know everything. Ask around, I am extremely polite to all that are polite to me.
So, no you can't say the same thing to me because I actually try to answer, you are just defending your own ego with mocking and ridiculing other people.
So you get points for trying. But in your own words philosophical tools and methods of dialectic are supposed to come up with the answers. So why don't they? Is there no way you can go beyond your answer to reach the solution? You said that these tools were used for that purpose.
If you cannot go any further towards a solution to the problem then what does that mean?
Does it mean that you cannot use them properly? Or maybe you are ignorant of the true facts of the situation.
Could it maybe mean that there is no solution? No, you said that it would always reach a solution so it cannot be that.
So, either you demonstrate that you have an understanding of the things discussed and prove me wrong when I suggest you study more, or just stop with your tu quoque fallacies. You attitude at the moment is the evidence in itself of my statement.
There we go with the challenges again. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have done that countless times yourself without realizing it. Do you really think that you would recognize a dialectic if it hit you in the face? Actually you might, if you read about Meno.
Explain to me how I could prove that I have an understanding of what we are discussing. Would you like me too some tests or something maybe? No I am not being hypocritical, I leave things like that to others that cannot "win" an argument without putting people down to do so.
Yes it's amazing how destructive and disloyal to their country some politicians can be when trying to win power. We have that here at the moment. The opposition helped pass a bill, against the government's wishes, to allow seriously ill people in offshore immigration detention centres to come to Australia for treatment. The government, who claim the sole reason for their very harsh treatment of asylum seekers is to discourage people from setting out in boats from Indonesia to try to get here, is now blaring out to anybody who will listen that the passing of the bill has now made it easy for people-smugglers to get people into our country.
Firstly it's not true and secondly, even if it were, the last thing that should be done is advertise it to people smugglers.
All because they want to try to win a looming election by c;aiming to be 'tougher on illegal immigrants'.
:sad:
Our problem is that all of the people are leaving because of the violence and Trump is getting pissed off about it.
The president keeps trying to convince everyone that crime, especially murder rates have dropped. According to his statistics they have, but a guy shot dead while driving a car should not count as a traffic accident.
Death from lead poisoning also seems to have gone up here, funny thing is that the people seem to be taking all the lead at one time.
Use of plastic bags and ropes to tie your hands to stop you from removing the bag seem to be a popular method of suicide recently as well. They say the instructions for tying your own hands can googled.
And no one is getting put in jail either.
ChristofferFebruary 27, 2019 at 15:12#2598190 likes
What proof do you have that ordinary people, without a degree in philosophy, cannot understand the concept of a dialectic discussion. Through out history people have been doing this with absolutely no formal education. The way you talk it is as if these abilities are something that developed because of colleges. Lots of the greatest philosopher had little or no education at all. Thinking is something that can be and is developed by anyone that wants to develop their abilities and is possible without out going to the university. That is the BS of the universities sell so that you will pay their exorbitant fees.
It doesn't take much to understand the basic concepts of dialectics and dialectic discourse, but do you think that if you went out on the street and asked random people what "dialectic" is, I can guarantee you that very few even knows what it is. You are trying to argue that people know dialectic methods without training when the closest is that they might accidentally do a dialectic, but do not have it as routine. This way of arguing that you are doing now is populistic, it's the anti-intellectual ideas that experts aren't needed, that knowledge is bullshit and that common sense is enough. It's the same BS that populists are spreading around, undermining any kind of intellectual discussion and progress in favor of emotional outbursts from people with low education. Their perspective is extremely important, but this anti-intellectual BS is actually disgusting and disrespectful against those who actually put a lot of time and effort into learning.
It is a good idea to read all of the thread if you want to participate properly. I have not, as I explained to someone else, made any demands. You stated what you think was the solution and I pointed out some of the problems with your idea.
You didn't point out problems. I'm not sure you actually understood the points I've made before smashing the replay button.
Both of which have been discussed at length, the former idea causes too many problems and would be expensive. The latter is a long term project that would not fulfill today's needs.
And you want a magical unicorn somewhere in the middle, please explain what large scale options you have outside of those two, I'm all ears, because that right there is no criticism to what I said, it's a denial of how society works in a democracy. This is why your demand on us to write an absolute solution is naive.
That s the only solution that I have ever offered, educate the people. But as I said earlier it will not work until the people have a reason to give up their guns. By reason I mean that possibly the feel safe without them, when do you think that will happen?
You are talking in circles. First, you say, exactly what I've been saying all the time, that to solve all this is to educate people. But then you say that there won't be a change until people feel safe. You are putting the cart before the horse.
The whole point of educating people is to make them understand that they will only feel truly safe when all cogs in the machine have been put in place.
For some that claims to be so superior at thinking, that is very badly expressed. It has nothing to do with philosophical discussion around justice and ethics.
I do not claim that, stop your mockery bullshit, it's childish.
Because gun control has elements of MORALITY and ethics it can be discussed philosophically.
I think that sounds better, don't you?
So why do you even question the idea that gun control is a philosophical discussion? You're doing semantical nonsense arguments to "win the day" instead of doing a dialectic.
I never said it was, I just wanted to find out how you would explain it. Bummer right.
No, you are just incapable of linguistic pragmatism. There's a fallacy called ambiguity fallacy. You question gun control as a philosophical topic, then you question the philosophical category in which the discussion of gun control goes under, to arrive at a conclusion that was linguistically pragmatically understood from the get-go.
The initial text you questioned gun control to be a philosophical topic was this:
Just see how many get excited at a party if you start talking philosophy. This is not what most common people have an interest in. Which also means that they don't have the tools to understand the issues and are easily persuaded by lobbyist and smart political rhetoric.
If you actually read that again you see that I pointed out that because gun control is a topic that can be discussed philosophically and should be, there are better tools through it than just common talk which can be affected by lobbyist and political rhetoric. Philosophical discourse is better equipped to look at the actual facts of the matter.
How you changed that to questioning gun control as a philosophical topic, I don't know, and I don't know how you arrive at your last conclusion which is basically saying the same thing as I pointed out in the first place.
You are arguing in circles in order to just win any points you can, but what's your actual point, really?
Ambiguity fallacy.
Well I suppose I could try imitating your dickhead tone, but I don't think that I have enough of a stuck up snobbish attitude to pull it off. But I will try if you want.
And you just keep going. Maybe you should look at who had the tone in the first place, who uses the most ad hominem words and arguments? Maybe you could even look at how others answer to you, then compare the data and do some self-reflection.
Your interpretation as snobbish is in your own head, you read some counter-argument to your argument and instead of keeping with a traditional calm and philosophical dialectic behavior, you just burst out insults back to the one making the counter-argument. Why do you think I point out that you seem to lack philosophical methodology knowledge? Because you don't show any of it.
Wow, so your opinions thoughts are correct because you use the dialectical approach. Where did you find all of the information that you used to come to these certified conclusions, I would love to see it. I think that you really need to go to the USA and offer you assistance in solving this problem. I don't think that they have anyone like you over there because this problem has been going on for years and years and no one has been able to come up with a solution.
What conclusions? That we either have the option of enforcing laws against people's wishes or educate them to understand why strict gun control is good for them so that they vote in that direction? It's basic logic of the democratic system. And the dialectic approach I'm speaking of is how we discuss this as a group. You aren't doing it, you basically just attack what you don't like and won't actually use any dialectic approach. And when someone does it to you, by dissecting your argument, you just call them a variety of ad hominems. It's extremely childish behavior on a philosophical forum and you don't seem to understand why so many argue against you in here.
I don't know. I am not in the habit, as you seem to be, of testing everyone's ability to use their dialectic skills. How many times have you tried to have dialectic discussions with people in the street?
It's not about testing people's ability. Are you intentionally misunderstanding what you read in order to just give whatever counter you can on everything? You do understand that what I'm talking about is that because not all know about dialectic discourse methods, they will lean back on emotional opinions. It's why arguments without method often fail because there's no self-reflection through the dialectic method. People just bash their opinions in other people's heads, this is a fact. You can just look at the hyperbolic comments on comment sections anywhere online and you will understand what I'm talking about.
So you think that maybe if I quoted something from Socrates to support what I have said about gun control it would be more believable? Hmm, I will have to try that sometime. Or maybe if I continuously asked questions to provoke people to think but refused to admit I had any personal knowledge It would help my case. Reading about other peoples' way of thinking does not mean that you will be able to think like them. If that was the case I would be able to run circles around Witty.
While we are on the topic of peoples' knowledge about philosophy, did you ever figure out why those people came up with the idea that everything was made up of water?
You're just ranting irrelevant stuff right now. I'm talking about methods of discourse, not quoting philosophers. Methods in order to get rid of irrelevant rants.
True, but there are not that many moral problems, most of them are technical. Most development companies have legal department that deal with anything dodgy, Maybe that is where they would work.
I didn't think we were talking about specific companies. Moral problems, both internally as a company and externally with what the company is doing, applies where it is applicable. Within this topic, it is very relevant to have ethic philosophers consulting decisions of gun laws. But it seems you view philosophers as opinion bullshitters and not professionals? Like, better to get some street smart people to go through the moral complexities of political questions that will affect billions of people in all manner of life situations than a philosopher in ethics.
I never said I had an answer, at least not one that would work as needed, but I did point out that a lot of these things have been discussed before and I have given the reasons why I doubt they would not work. I was not demand absolute solutions, but with all of your superior dialectic prowess I thought that maybe you would be the one to come up with the right answer. Seems not to do so.
I did, but you don't agree that it is a solution, or don't understand how it's a solution, therefore you want another solution. And once again, I was referring to a dialectic discourse, which I urged you to do on the solution given, which you didn't, you just wanted another solution. So, I can't do more before you do your part of the dialectic, and that has been my point all along.
And a simple epistemic fact should be easy for you to prove, so go ahead and do it. But before you try answering think about the people that developed dialectic methods, where did they study? How did they come up with the ideas if it is not possible without education?
People who haven't trained in argumentative methodology, who don't know what dialectic means, is or is done, does not have that method as a tool while debating and discussing. Most people do not have such training. Those who have such training has most likely been studying some kind of philosophy.
Therefore, most common people don't have the methods needed for a dialectic method for knowledge.
In other terms:
X is dialectic understanding, Y is normal argumentative understanding. X leads to Z which is improved knowledge and better arguments, Y leads to A which is an argumentative emotional stalemate.
p1 X most likely leads to Z but does never lead to A.
p2 Y most likely leads to A but rarely lead to Z.
p3 X is common with those trained in argumentative methodology, Y is common with everyone else.
Therefore the probability of X being superior to reach Z is higher than that Y leads to Z and since X is more common with those trained in the methodology, it is lower in quantity than Y which is the rest.
It's a simple fact of probability. If you don't agree with the above probability, please feel free to counter it properly. The probability is a large scale probability, which means, in this case, that if a proper dialectic method is recommended to understand all nuances of a complex political issue, fewer people are able to reach a nuanced conclusion.
I never get excited by wishywashy discussions with people that think they are better than the rest just because they studied philosophy but know nothing of reality. Reality here is used in the sense of everydayness. But I do enjoy it when the fish are biting.
And you judge people without knowing anything about them or their experiences in life and reality but can't entertain the thought and simple fact that people can both be trained in philosophy and have real experiences.
You judge character, the way someone writes. It's fallacious, biased and disrespectful and if anyone needs a reality check it's definitely you.
I am not really sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that someone has been judging me because of my behavior? If that is so, that is not my problem and it is very unphilosophical to use this as an argument to prove that I am wrong.
If you use ad hominems in your arguments, you fail to argue and can't demand more of others. If you behave badly in a discussion, that is your responsibility and if people criticize you for your behavior it damn straight is your responsibility to do better. It's rather hypocritical to call out others behavior when they react to your behavior. That is what's called a tu quoque. If you go to a party and start punching someone and then get hit back by others, would you then call them out for hitting you? Like you have been mistreated in any way? Wouldn't that be delusional, to say the least. The ad hominem name-calling, the mockery etc. just because someone formulates their text in a certain way that you don't like is, as I said numerous times, childish.
I have not mocked you for any knowledge that you have provided, what ever knowledge that might be.
You just have a total lack of insight into how you write to people. And even the end of that sentence is a mockery. It's a bullying mentality, like some insecure teenager trying to hit back at every chance they get. To me, it's just irrelevant and desperate ad hominem-rants which gradually, for each time you write such things, lowers my respect of your knowledge in proper discourse.
If you want respect and good behavior from others, you should lead by example.
I get some very interesting responses from the people with interesting things to say. Especially those that don't take the time to write long post full of criticism.
Maybe people just don't care about answering to you because of how you write? I shouldn't, I mean, especially since I'm answering to a long post full of criticism... oh, the irony.
Never judge a book by its cover. I seriously doubt that you have read even half the number of philosophy books that I have. But I don't like to swagger around telling everyone that I know everything and common people don't.
I don't doubt that you doubt that. I also don't go around telling things like that. I mean, you should never judge a book by its cover, right? Especially when you don't even understand the books content or the point I made.
Do unto others what they have done to you. You insulted most of humanity so don't cry when someone tell you that you do not know everything. Ask around, I am extremely polite to all that are polite to me.
Is it an insult to point out that some know more of argumentative methodology than others? Is it an insult to humanity if I say that some people know cooking more than others and that some chefs are masters of cooking? If you cannot understand the simple probability logic and instead interpret that as an insult to humanity and that you shall take up the sword to defend humanity against this vile creature who said that there are fewer masters of cooking in this world than common people who mastered cooking, then I can't help you. Then you simply don't understand a word of what I said and instead just emotionally burst out ad hominems because you cannot wrap your head around what I actually said. And if you don't agree with the probability, please counter the argument I presented earlier, in a nice dialectic manner, so that I can read it without having to read your emotional burst of populistic anti-intellectualism, it's tiring.
So you get points for trying. But in your own words philosophical tools and methods of dialectic are supposed to come up with the answers. So why don't they? Is there no way you can go beyond your answer to reach the solution? You said that these tools were used for that purpose.
If you cannot go any further towards a solution to the problem then what does that mean?
Does it mean that you cannot use them properly? Or maybe you are ignorant of the true facts of the situation.
Could it maybe mean that there is no solution? No, you said that it would always reach a solution so it cannot be that.
It means you don't participate in a dialectic discourse in order to reach a good solution, you are more interested in blasting anti-intellectualism towards those who propose methods to reach solutions. When presented with an initial solution, you don't return in a dialectical way, you do emotional outbursts and then write nonsense answers. As I read other answers to you, I'm not quite alone in thinking this way. Maybe that should be a hint to you, but you'll probably just ignore it.
There we go with the challenges again. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have done that countless times yourself without realizing it. Do you really think that you would recognize a dialectic if it hit you in the face? Actually you might, if you read about Meno.
Explain to me how I could prove that I have an understanding of what we are discussing. Would you like me too some tests or something maybe? No I am not being hypocritical, I leave things like that to others that cannot "win" an argument without putting people down to do so.
Deflecting rants of nonsense. You have been given answers. You have a solution told and an opening to counter with an argument.
You are totally unable to self-reflect upon your own writing. You just burst out emotional rants with no content. I've answered this long post and yet, after reading all of it, you have actually not said anything new at all. You repeat your earlier points without reading answers to them, I mean truly read them. You continue a bullying attitude which is the same kind of anti-intellectual nonsense that populists push over and over, and which I think is beneath discussions on philosophical forums. If you think I have low respect for common people outside of philosophy then no, I don't have low respect. But "common" people like you certainly question whether or not I should.
You've read my point and argument on knowledge of dialectic methodology and you read my point on what is the best solution in order to restrict guns. I'm still waiting for a response to those, worthy of a philosophical discussion. I will exclude any further nonsense rants from you and focus on that. Want to express your bullying populist attitude, go punch a pillow.
It doesn't take much to understand the basic concepts of dialectics and dialectic discourse, but do you think that if you went out on the street and asked random people what "dialectic" is, I can guarantee you that very few even knows what it is. You are trying to argue that people know dialectic methods without training when the closest is that they might accidentally do a dialectic, but do not have it as routine.
I actually was finished with this discussion, but when I got to work this morning I decide to do some investigation. Where I work we have teaching software that allows the teacher to create local network chats and polls. The polls can be done anonymously so students feel free to express themselves. I set a task for the ninth graders.
"In one sentence explain how you would fix the country's violence problem"
As I explained, I live in a country that was know as the murder capital of the world and many still think it is. There are very few guns here and not many people can afford to buy one and pay the high cost of the registration of the gun. There are strict laws controlling who can buy guns. Most of the weapons are in the hands of the army, police and criminal gangs and no one is really sure who has most.
Out of 75 9th graders these are the answers in order of popularity.
1. Teach the gang members how to live without harming people. Show them what they need to know to get a job. 58 votes
2. Get more good cops and take away the guns by force. 10 votes
3. Just shoot the fuckers that have guns. 5 votes This is the actual phrase used by 3, the others were not so polite.
4. How the hell should I know, that is what politicians are for. 1
5. I don't care, when I graduate i am getting the hell out of here. 1 vote
Now if it is not possible for people to solve problems without your fancy shmancy dialectic tools, how the hell did they come up with the same answer as you. Either they are just as good at thinking as you, or you are no better than they are.
Do you know what hydraulic resistance is? It is a part of your everyday life. You could not explain it to anyone could you? When you drive a car or go the gym you know how to use the machines and what they do without knowing how these things do what they do. Not knowing the official terminology does not mean that you cannot do something. People have a habit of figuring things out, that is how we evolved.
You are arguing in circles in order to just win any points you can, but what's your actual point, really?
I am not, as I have repeated so many times, trying to win anything. I do not come to do anything except entertain myself, reading and comment on some of the threads.
It's the same BS that populists are spreading around, undermining any kind of intellectual discussion and progress in favor of emotional outbursts from people with low education. Their perspective is extremely important, but this anti-intellectual BS is actually disgusting and disrespectful against those who actually put a lot of time and effort into learning.
So you spent all that money on a college degree and cannot get a job then come here and talk down to people as a time waster. You rant on about how others are not capable of doing what you do but at this point have failed to provide even a single piece of evidence that this is true.
Therefore, most common people don't have the methods needed for a dialectic method for knowledge.
In other terms:
X is dialectic understanding, Y is normal argumentative understanding. X leads to Z which is improved knowledge and better arguments, Y leads to A which is an argumentative emotional stalemate.
p1 X most likely leads to Z but does never lead to A.
p2 Y most likely leads to A but rarely lead to Z.
p3 X is common with those trained in argumentative methodology, Y is common with everyone else.
Therefore the probability of X being superior to reach Z is higher than that Y leads to Z and since X is more common with those trained in the methodology, it is lower in quantity than Y which is the rest.
It's a simple fact of probability. If you don't agree with the above probability, please feel free to counter it properly. The probability is a large scale probability, which means, in this case, that if a proper dialectic method is recommended to understand all nuances of a complex political issue, fewer people are able to reach a nuanced conclusion.
I have not seen things like this in sooooo many years, but I might still remember the basics. Have to think about it.
But seeing as you have brought up this wonderful topic, maybe you would care to show us your skills. Show us how you used this method to come to the conclusion that education was the method to solve the gun violence problem. Now I would hate for you to think that I am being abusive for asking this, but I really think I might remember more after a quick refresher course.
When I asked the kids how they had reached their conclusions they said that it was just common sense.
Apart from saying that I am naive here are a few others things that you have offered to support your case that education is the way to solve the problem of gun violence.
Maybe you could even look at how others answer to you,
Maybe people just don't care about answering to you because of how you write? I shouldn't, I mean, especially since I'm answering to a long post full of criticism... oh, the irony.
If you want respect and good behavior from others, you should lead by example.
As I read other answers to you, I'm not quite alone in thinking this way. Maybe that should be a hint to you, but you'll probably just ignore it.
Why do you think I point out that you seem to lack philosophical methodology knowledge? Because you don't show any of it.
You are totally unable to self-reflect upon your own writing. You just burst out emotional rants with no content.
You just have a total lack of insight into how you write to people. And even the end of that sentence is a mockery. It's a bullying mentality, like some insecure teenager trying to hit back at every chance they get.
I recommend that you study a bit more philosophy before you demand solutions in the way you do. You're acting like a child right now
But you don't seem to know much about these things? (Why does this statement have a question mark?)
No, you are certainly not a philosopher, that's for sure.
What do you call it when you use information that is not provable to try to make the other person in an discussion look silly so that you can win? I am sure that their is a name for it, but I just cannot remember.
And you judge people without knowing anything about them or their experiences in life and reality but can't entertain the thought and simple fact that people can both be trained in philosophy and have real experiences.
That looks like the sentence I was going to write to you. You judge people just by the way they write.
You've read my point and argument on knowledge of dialectic methodology and you read my point on what is the best solution in order to restrict guns. I'm still waiting for a response to those, worthy of a philosophical discussion. I will exclude any further nonsense rants from you and focus on that. Want to express your bullying populist attitude, go punch a pillow.
On your point and argument on knowledge of dialectic methodology, I think that you are very wrong to say that common people cannot do it. They might not know the name for it or even that they are doing it, but they do it. But I am sure that I have already said that.
And I did read your point on what is the best solution in order to restrict guns. I even answered it if you would take the time to read and stop blathering on about your freaking college education and how great you are and how naive other people are.
Unfortunately, common people don't have the tools to understand this on their own, but you can still not force laws beyond the democratic process. So the only thing that I can see is positive is to educate, to provide the information about this to the people so that they, after a while, stop defending their personal preferences in order to increase the quality of life within their nation. — Christoffer
[quote="Sir2u;258853"]Don't put the common people down, a lot of us do understand the information. That is why they still refuse to vote for banning guns. I stated a long time ago that one way to solve the problem is through education, changing the mentality of the people might change the feelings towards guns. But how long will this take and how successful will the education system be against family and street influences? And the biggest part of the gun problem is not the normal everyday guy in the street, it is the thugs, How do you educate them
I gave you the information you needed to continue with a dialectic discussion and you ignored it.
I've answered this long post and yet, after reading all of it, you have actually not said anything new at all. You repeat your earlier points without reading answers to them, I mean truly read them. You continue a bullying attitude which is the same kind of anti-intellectual nonsense that populists push over and over, and which I think is beneath discussions on philosophical forums. If you think I have low respect for common people outside of philosophy then no, I don't have low respect. But "common" people like you certainly question whether or not I should.
How about that, you must be reading my mind. Your rants about the dialect discussion were repetitive, uninformative, insulting and boring.
You were asked several questions which you completely ignored, which I think was rather rude of you.
You make sweeping claims about knowing how other people think and act, and when you were asked to provide evidence of this and other claims you made you either ignored it or gave some irrelevant answer to it.
You talk about how important it is to have knowledge to be able to have a dialectic discussion about a topic, but show no real knowledge about the gun problem in the USA.
So, if you would like to explain how my students came to the same conclusion you did without your training,
or if you would like to try to explain to me why my answer to your proposed solution is irrelevant,
or if you would try to explain to me your theory of how people actually came to the conclusion that everything is made of water,
or show us how you used your methods to reach your conclusions about the solution to gun violence,
then I will listen to you. But I will exclude any further nonsense rants from you including but not limited to professing the greatness of the dialectic method.
But before we close, I must say that I admire your writing, as an EASL person you write OK.
ChristofferFebruary 28, 2019 at 09:58#2600810 likes
Since you start out with the same kind of attitude that I was urging you to stop with I have no reason to continue wasting my time on your ego. You have been given answers and you refuse to stop using biases and fallacies. I went to this forum to get away from having to argue against populist rhetoric.
Pattern-chaserFebruary 28, 2019 at 11:35#2601100 likes
So I suppose you go around insulting people that are carrying guns? 8-)
I think the point is that the presence of the guns makes politeness both impossible and irrelevant. In the presence of the gun, you are constrained by fear of being shot (and maybe killed) to say whatever the gun-holder wants to hear. Politeness is something you do voluntarily, not for fear of your life. :worry:
With regard to firearms, the United Kingdom is not generally an armed society. Our citizens, criminals, and police are generally unarmed in that respect. And yet, since this has been the case, we've stuck around, and it is no coincidence that gun crime is exceptionally low here in comparison with other places, and there's no good reason to believe that we won't last very long as a result of these circumstances. That's balderdash.
— S
But the UK is the violent crime center of Europe, even beating the USA.
You really should learn when to concede. You very clearly changed the subject to the broader subject of violent crime.
I suspected that your link would be dodgy. And guess what? It is. It contains a statistic that the much more credible fact checking website PolitiFact rates as false.
Note that I never even denied that the UK has a higher rate of violent crime in comparison with the US. Although that doesn't mean that I accept it either. Like the article says, and as experts in this field say, it's impossible to produce a truly valid comparison.
The claim that "the UK is the violent crime capital of Europe and even beats the US" was based on a statistic which a credible fact checking site has rated as false.
And andrewk similarly exposed some of the other links you referred to in an attempt to support your claim.
It's a good thing that there are people who actually look into these things critically instead of just swallowing them up.
I commented that it must be awful living in the UK with all of those knife crimes.
Which changes the subject once again, so I made a point which connected knife crime to gun crime, thereby making a relevant point, given the topic. This point of mine was not only relevant, but well supported, which is more than you can say.
Then you said that you had addressed those things before as if I had asked a question or made some sort of incredible statement about knife crime. I just made a comment about something that you can read about in the newspapers everyday, and they do appear to be happening more and more. And lots of those people that have been stabbed appear to have died. Unfortunately, or maybe I should say fortunately there are not many gun crimes in the UK to compare the survival rate to.
Yeah, and as we all know, papers never exaggerate or spin things a certain way or even more or less just completely make things up. But even if your point about knife crime in the UK is true enough, that still doesn't make it relevant in this context.
It's just the same old whataboutery. The last recourse of those who do not have a proper argument, but still want to look as though they're making a good point.
Since you start out with the same kind of attitude that I was urging you to stop with I have no reason to continue wasting my time on your ego. You have been given answers and you refuse to stop using biases and fallacies. I went to this forum to get away from having to argue against populist rhetoric.
OK, I will be polite to you.
Please explain why the response I gave to your solution to gun crime is not worth talking about or irrelevant.
You do realise that the evidence is on display in public, and that if you try to misrepresent, you risk being easily exposed?
The same applies to you.
In none of the posts I made along that line of discussion did I refer to gun control, for the simple reason that we were discussing armed societies being normal not gun control.
The only times I mentioned guns was to respond to your comment about wounds and that people might buy them for protection.
There was no change of topic, just parallel discussions. The same thing happened when I was talking to andrewk, separate discussion.
I wonder if you would have even looked at the list of references if I has not specifically mentioned them. And if would would care to take note, I posted the link as a reference to the UK being violent nothing about guns.
The fact that you continued to talk only about guns is your problem, but I have been talking about something else as well
In none of the posts I made along that line of discussion did I refer to gun control, for the simple reason that we were discussing armed societies being normal not gun control.
The only times I mentioned guns was to respond to your comment about wounds and that people might buy them for protection.
There was no change of topic, just parallel discussions. The same thing happened when I was talking to andrewk, separate discussion.
I wonder if you would have even looked at the list of references if I has not specifically mentioned them. And if would would care to take note, I posted the link as a reference to the UK being violent nothing about guns.
The fact that you continued to talk only about guns is your problem, but I have been talking about something else as well
The original comment about armed societies was clearly about firearms, not any old weapon. Not slingshots, maces, dynamite, or lightsabers. So it's you, and whoever you were discussing this tangent with, who has gone off topic and taken the phrase out of context.
Jesus. What a waste of time that was.
Anyway, I rejoined when you and some other guy were talking about shooting criminals. If not with firearms, then with what? Water pistols?
And of course the UK is violent. What place isn't? That's a massive climb down from your original claim. You should be more open about the fact that the original claim was shown to be dubious. I took one look at that link and raised an eyebrow. And lo and behold...
Hey guys, look, this website says that guns aren't that bad after all:
I think the point is that the presence of the guns makes politeness both impossible and irrelevant.
Have you ever found yourself in the position where you are being irritated and annoyed by a very slow driver doing 15mph on a narrow winding road, you are late already and this guy in front of you will not get out of the way.
You don't try to push him out of the way or over take in a dangerous manner do you? Why not? Fear. Fear stops you from doing these things. The same as many other things in life that you do not do.
You might say that you do not try to push him out of the way because you were taught to respect others, that maybe true, but I cannot imagine anyone in that situation just chugging along happily behind him. Almost everyone would be calling him nasty names and honking the horn, neither of which is respectful.
In the presence of the gun, you are constrained by fear of being shot (and maybe killed) to say whatever the gun-holder wants to hear. Politeness is something you do voluntarily, not for fear of your life. :worry:
Fear of the law, fear of offending, fear of what others might think about us, fear of losing what we have and lots of others control our lives. Exactly how is that different from fear of a gun?
Being polite is something most people do out of habit, and not always voluntarily. Lots of people hate their bosses, their neighbors, their mother in laws but they are polite because it is convenient to do so.
But please be a man for once and admit that you were off topic as much as me.
No, we were at cross purposes with you apparently talking past me. I stuck to the original topic. You made it about something else. I tried to steer the conversion back to the original topic. Don't try to make out as though I'm complicit in your act of taking things off track.
Comments (332)
I am a believer in that an armed society, is a polite society and if ever I find myself in need of protection outside of my Rottweiler, that those who are around me will have the ability to act instead of calling for help that too often would arrive to late.
~right or wrong, it is the reality I live in and raise young men in. Both are certified marksman as is NicK. I am the only one that would never pick up a firearm because I believe it would be used against me but that is because I doubt I could psychologically handle, the taking of another's life.
That's insane.
So I suppose you go around insulting people that are carrying guns? 8-)
The right of freedom of speech is just as respected as the right to bear arms. It would not only be disingenuous but also hypocritical of an American, to tell others what rights they are entitled to.
Again I say an armed society is a polite society.
About 30,000 people are killed every year by firearms in the USA. The rate varies between 2 or 3 per 100,000 people in New England and the Upper Midwest to around 45 to 50 per 100,000 in the Deep South. 40% of people in Minnesota own guns, and 12% of Massachusetts people own guns. The rate of gun violence is very low in both states. Alabama and Mississippi both have gun ownership rates that are over 50%, and both have high rates of gun deaths. About 50% of North Dakotans own guns, and they have very low rates of gun violence.
The rate of gun deaths isn't very well correlated with gun ownership. Most people who own guns do not kill people. There must be something else that accounts for gun related deaths besides gun ownership. There is.
It's culture. People in some parts of the country (like the Deep South) are much more likely than New Englanders to take justice into their own hands. They are, apparently, more likely to feel insults to their honor, dignity, and so forth than are people in the Upper Midwest. People in the Deep South are more likely to distrust civil authority ("the government" they hiss) than people in New England.
Why?
Differences in religion, ethics, background, social morés, and so forth.
Puritans get a bad rap by a lot of people, but the Puritans considered civil society important, viewed the state as a an appropriate administrator of justice, and expected people to behave civilly and appropriately. Those values spread westward, and were strengthened by the influence of German and Scandinavian Lutheran immigration into the Midwest. More uptight, probably, but we kill far fewer people over trivial matters.
In the Deep South there has been a long standing preference for the Local against the Centralized authority of the state -- even their own state. (Before the civil war, southerns didn't build railroads across state lines for fear of the next state over interfering or benefitting.) They were individualists in a way that New Englanders weren't. Righteousness was a much more personal affair, and subject to personal interpretation. Couple this view of righteousness with suspicion of state authority, and you get a do-it-yourself approach to justice. You also get a more individualized kind of resentment against others. Wrongs must be righted, and if you wronged me, I will personally punish you (by shooting you, quite possibly).
Yes, sober Norwegian Lutherans in the north do occasionally kill each other, but at nothing like the rate the Baptists do down south.
So if all the guns and ammo were to disappear tomorrow, the rate of murder might not change all that much. The white southerners and the black sons of the south living in northern ghettos would continue to kill each other, with knives probably, at the same high rate as they do with guns. At least there would be fewer bystanders killed.
Perhaps because there have been cases in which Americans have done just that. It's obviously not a matter of 'all or none': some do and some don't; some will and some won't. It'd be similarly misguided to assume that they [i]wouldn't[/I] overreact in any situation.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Very doubtful - even in America. How many Americans and American organisations are explicitly anti-free speech compared to those who are explicitly anti-right to bear arms? The latter is not only less respected, it's more frequently and more strongly opposed in places like America and the U.K. - and I hope that that remains so.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
No it wouldn't, and if it would, I'd be glad to be non-American.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Again, I say that that's insane. :D
(By the way: Welcome PF members! Please leave your weapons at the door before entering.)
No shit! :D
"I am very curious as to why the association is made between Americans legally owning firearms and the idea that the gun owner would overreact to anything said about them."
Because people are human, and untrained people in particular have no business being around me with weapons that can kill me if they're having a bad day with their wife. Furthermore, most people who feel they need guns appear to be very insecure and plugged into the rightwing meme machine which spreads fear about the "other" - meaning usually nonwhites. So they tend to be the very type of people who will shoot somebody over a parking space dispute. Gun culture is a sickness. It should be fought at every level.
Except that gun deaths are nil where nobody owns guns.
That is sort of like saying there are no road deaths where everyone walks: kind of obvious. But they still use knives, fists and other objects to get the job done. If someone is intent on doing harm they will not stop because of lack of a gun.
Personally I'd much rather face someone that has a knife than a gun -- and fewer skinny teenagers could pull off mass murder.
Meow!
GREG
Me too.
Quoting Wosret
All they would need is a pressure cooker and BOOM!! They are easier to buy than guns as well.
They also have a chance of blowing themselves up trying.
I was actually surprised (honestly) that something wasn't done about the pressure cooker menace. I can see where one could probably not board a plane with a pressure cooker under one's arm, but they still sell them. At the best stores, too. You would think Bloomingdales would be more socially responsible. Don't they realize that once thrifty housewives are done canning beans and corn in the summer, they start thinking about blowing up the Homecoming Dance?
I'm not skinny! I'm definitely Goldilocks.
Granted. However, it isn't the gun itself that instigates the shootings. Guns, in themselves, once given unnatural symbolic loadings and fetishist values, are a potential problem that all too often slides into an actual problem.
What IS very problematic is the combination of gun ownership and three values:
1. DIY justice
2. Distrust (or hostility) toward the state and civil authorities
3. "Honor-sensitive" personalities and cultural habits that motivate perhaps deadly retaliation for real or imagined insults.
I am opposed to guns for civilians, other than appropriate rifles for hunting deer, pheasant, duck, geese, turkey, and so on -- as long as the hunters eat what they kill. No trophy hunting.
An armed society is cautious, wary, and nervous. If someone in your armed society wants to hurt you, they will simply be more careful, cautious, and wary about approaching their target. Your big vicious Rottweiler? Distractible and or disposable. Present a bitch in heat (assuming your dog is a male), a hunk of raw meat, pepper spray, or a bullet. Maybe you should get a flock of Rotts.
Have you installed proximity detectors, laser circuits, electric perimeter fences, mine fields, infrared cameras (night vision), atomic death rays, or punji stake booby traps? Perhaps these passive defenses (early detection, electrocution, liquidation) would be more effective. Geese make good guard animals, too. They make a lot of noise when strangers approach, plus you could eat them. You wouldn't eat your Rottweiler would you?
Granted, you live on a ranch and are at least somewhat isolated. Some precautions are appropriate. But don't confuse "polite society" with a "cautious, wary, and careful society" of people who also think a polite society is an armed society, and know guns from the inside out.
How many home invasions have there been in your county during the last 5 years?
Could you imagine what would happen if a school kid set off a couple in a school room full of kids? They don't even have to point it at people.
But when the kids go on a rampage with a gun, they know they are going to die anyway. So it makes no difference.
Nice welcome for the newcomers. >:)
As well as being funny, this is a good representation of what most Australians think of the American gun issue.
A gun makes it a heck of a lot easier.
Even though they are not my words originally, they describe what I see around me and what my experience has been. Chicago is my hometown where the gun control is about as tight as they come and now I am on a ranch in Arizona, where you can carry a concealed firearm without a permit.
Just because someone carries a firearm does not mean that they are "out of control" or just looking for a reason to fight. It is actually quite the opposite. Those who carry a firearm in Arizona rarely hide it, it's just part of the culture. Twenty years ago it was gun racks on the back window of the trucks, now it is on their side hip for a guy and pouched in the front of the tummy if it is a woman. Unlike Chicago where you have to be suspicious of others because it is hard to judge the unknown. Arizonan's know straight up who is armed and it would be wise to believe that some are still carrying concealed.
That is what it is really about, being "wise" when it comes to living in a society that is likely armed.
First you have to be wise enough to know if you should ever be carrying a gun to begin with. I do believe that if you have a firearm AND don't know how to use it (which most important is to know when to use a firearm) that it will likely be used against you. This is not just a phrase but something I witnessed as a child being used against my single Mom, who had to protect two young children.
If you decide you are capable of carrying a firearm and legally allowed to do so, then it becomes a part of your level of defenses not another tool to use in dealing with assholes who have an attitude. The people that carry a firearm are very aware of their surroundings and those of us who don't carry are not just more aware of the people who are openly armed but are counting on them to take action, IF action were to become necessary to protect his/her family lives and those lives around them. Whether it is the lady at the next ranch over being armed or two out of six people in line at the gas station, it's all the same. You are more aware, you are more polite, you hold down your ruckus if your drunk and in general you are just more likely to watch how you behave in public.
Hence 'an armed society, is a polite society'.
Right. Well, we're here, we have queer ways of welcoming people. Get used to it.
I have never been in a situation where 'action' was necessary. The whole idea is pretty bizarre to me. I've never had the thought 'I wish someone here was carrying a gun'. My folks had their house burgled a few years ago. My mum came home to find the intruder inside. The intruder grabbed a screwdriver and threatened her from across the room not to do anything, so she ran out of the house. As traumatizing as that was I'm pretty happy that the most dangerous weapon involved was a screwdriver. Also happy that my mum was non armed, the idea of shooting the guy would be completely messed up. I actually felt a bit sorry for him, he got more than an extra year in prison for the assault charges. Just panicking and grabbing a screwdriver will get you that much jail time even if you don't intend to use it.
Things are messages. Condoms are about sex, precautions, and protection. Running shoes are about fitness (actual or wishful thinking); a phone is about connectedness; a clock is about management (self or otherwise); a car is about freedom and maturity for a teenager.
The way our local culture interprets objects makes a difference. Clearly Rhode Islanders interpret guns differently than people do in Alaska. Gay guys who insist on barebacking (no condom) are interpreting sex, risk, and life much differently than condom users. People who can turn a cell phone off interpret connection differently than people who drive into concrete walls while texting.
No, I don't think so. I also don't particularly like the implication of said phrase. A polite society that I'd want to live in has nothing to do with violence, but with compassion and respect.
Though I still like firearms. I've been shooting since I was 8, so I just don't have any sort of averse feelings attached to weapons. Weapons are killing machines. I suppose I just don't see the world in a way where I think we are actually beyond killing. It's in that frame that I think of weapons. I much prefer having the reality of our violent lives closer to home -- so that the question of violence is not a bar conversation and an identity to project, but a serious action that we take ownership over, or disavow. As it is state-sponsored violence is a reality that few countries can say they don't participate in. Especially in the United States, for what that's worth. If it is killing and massacres that we are concerned with, I'd start with talking about the military.
Plus, I am a leftist. And I'm not particularly keen on letting just the right-wing crazies own firearms. I'd much prefer reasonable folk who are averse to violence than those who fetishize violence as a means to manhood own weapons.
Which is why loose gun control is bad: people are foolish at times. The tighter the better, in my view. It's not tight enough over there.
- If in a community the vast majority of gunowners either hunt or have shooting as a hobby/sport, or there are so much possibly dangerous wild animals (bears) that one ought to have a rifle when wandering in the wilderness, gunownership isn't a symptom of societal problems.
- If people have guns in their homes because they belong to the country's militia or are reservists (like in Switzerland), gun ownership isn't a symptom of societal problems.
- If people first and foremost own guns to protect themselves from criminals, it is a sign of deep societal problems. The need to have a gun to defend one's home tells a lot about the community itself, about the social cohesion and economic well being of everybody in the society. And basically how safe the community actually is.
The American you met does not stand alone in his attitude that he has a right to keep his firearms and would object if there was a government initiated confiscation. One of the reasons that many American's own firearms is to defend themselves against the very government that would feel entitled to such a confiscation. In a much older thread at another place, I asked whom around the world, would believe an American's plea for help, if our government turned on US, it's citizens AND help. The answer to my question was stunning as the ONLY forum member, in a sea of represented countries, that said would help was from Canada (maybe ssu, I would have to look back) and that was in the form of medical support and maybe refuge for American's wanting to flee the USA.
Scary freakin scenario for sure, when your government has been "helping" other countries the world over and NO one would come over to help the USA citizens fight it's own government.
Your government hasn't helped anyone except itself. You're not spending trillions of dollars in weaponry to help anyone because all that buys you is death.
The Australian government would help. We love helping your government and following it into war. Also it would be our honor to help your government to bring democracy and freedom to its citizens.
The lack of support is probably due at least in part to incredulity about the likelihood of any such eventuality. Think of what would have to happen for the stated scenario to transpire: Your leaders would have to cook up an essentially suicidal plan and then convince the entire security apparatus from generals down to soldiers on the ground to accept it and put it into operation. There would have to be an outbreak of simultaneous and sustained mass insanity among the government and its security forces for any such assault to take place. There's just no way it could get off the ground even if someone at the top was crazy enough to suggest it. The fact is that your government and your security forces are made up of real people who are on balance no less irrational than the population as a whole. So, the proposed scenario of an assault by the government on its people is as fanciful as a mass assault by American citizens on the government and its institutions. The only caveat I would add is that if there were some earth shattering event such as a nuclear war, a meteor strike, or some severe climactic disaster, the normal rules wouldn't apply. But that's hardly a basis for opposing policy changes that could save lives now.
(As an aside, this debate is a bit one-sided. Anyone else besides Tiff want to put the opposing view?)
EDIT: There's also a general problem with the phrasing "Gun Control" -- as if it were something you can increase or decrease -- which is a necessary result of politicizing any issue, but is problematic in finding any sort of real solution to the problem. This is especially so because laws around guns aren't like taxes or something. There's nothing to increase or decrease, in that sense. Rather, the need for good gun control laws needs to be tailored to the situation.
As it is, the frame is largely around an increase or decrease of gun control, followed by an attack on the culture of guns. But that's not really looking at the laws and finding sensible policies which would result in a better society. In the USA, at least, while one may desire a weapons ban or some such, generally speaking you'll probably just alienate yourself and bolster the NRA by proposing measures like that. An unfortunate result, considering how much far-right politics and the NRA are in bed with one another.
What exactly are you going to do with your handguns and assault rifles against tanks and planes of the army? I don't think guns will make a difference if the army decides to back the government.
What you need is a country where people feel comfortable ignoring orders. That way your soldiers won't ever turn against you because they're your brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers. Independent and autonomous people require something else than what the army instills in them though.
An armed society has been a very polite society. In those happy days when the code duello applied and gentlemen carried swords and even for some time afterward, into the early 19th century, politeness reigned, at least among the upper classes. When gentlemen were impolite to one another, they were subject to being called out. Once called out, they very politely arranged through seconds (who were also very polite) an encounter with swords or firearms where they politely sought to kill or wound each other.
The samurai during their heyday were also it seems very polite to one another, and impoliteness could lead to sudden death.
That's not to say, though, that an armed society has always been a polite one. There are various myths regarding the Old West, but it seems to be the case that most everyone was armed. Nonetheless, politeness isn't a characteristic normally ascribed to those of its society.
So it seems simplistic to speak of any causal relationship or even correlation between the prevalence of arms and politeness. A concept of honor was probably essential to the establishment of the code duello and the culture of the samurai.
I know many gun owners, and am one myself (I enjoy shooting clays with a shotgun). Those I know who own guns are extremely careful with them. There is a kind of etiquette involved, at least among shotgun owners and users, the purpose of which is to assure the firearm is unloaded and not pointing at anyone until it is to be used, safely. So I think there are many responsible gun owners.
The fetishistic regard for the Second Amendment we see here bewilders me, though, as does the very dubious, even bizarre, belief that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government which is intent on taking away our guns, which seems to be a part of that regard.
The fact remains, though, that guns are too easily available to those with the intent or the proclivity to use them to do harm to others. Gun control is therefore a necessity. The only issue should be what the extent of that control should be, and that should not be an issue we should allow to be influenced by the gun shills who currently comprise the leadership of the NRA and have the capacity to corrupt our legislators. Their purpose is merely to sell as many guns as they can.
I'm not persuaded by the "sufficiently motivated" argument because it posits a somewhat untestable premise. Counterfactuals are pointless and analogies are only as good as the similarity approaches equivalence. It is also foolish to conclude that because there might be sufficiently motivated individuals that we should make it easier for them by allowing access to the efficient tools for harm.
Quoting Baden
I contemplated the opposing view but everything I wrote came out indefensible or abhorrent. One view I am sympathetic to is that there are a plurality of reasons for gun ownership ranging from malicious intent to hobby and collection. We want to restrict one end of the spectrum while allowing the other end. Guns as self-defense lead to absurdities and an arms race.
No, having a gun at hand, and having sufficient skill, and some degree of good luck, would do so. Otherwise you could be easily overpowered or at least fail to overpower the other creature/s.
And, like the Australian comedian in the video said, there's a significant probability that one will use that gun on oneself. So, I can go out and buy a gun, and become skilled in how to use it effectively, and be self-satisfied that I'm more powerful than others, and then get depressed and shoot myself in the head. Happy ending.
Now, do I think Americans would win? At present, I do not. I don't think they have a reason to fight their own military. They're very pro-military and pro-USA. You wouldn't have popular resistance in most cases, today. But that's still different from the argument @Benkei is stating.
The Aussie comedian makes some very good points.
Handguns, hunting rifles, assault rifles, molotov cocktails, and whatever else might be cooked up, would probably be sufficient for the overthrow of a government, provided that the populace has withdrawn it's consent to be governed (a psychological step, not a legal step, of course.)
I work in what is supposed to be the most dangerous city in a non war zone. People are getting killed all the time. But I doubt that the cause of the deaths is guns. They used to kill them with machetes before guns became easily available.
People get killed because someone wants to kill them, if there were no guns they would just find another way to do it.
Etiquette may align with morality, but it is not necessary for a rule of etiquette to be considered morally required. Politeness can govern amoral behaviour such as the arrangement of utensils on a place setting. Since etiquette is not synonymous with moral obligation, it will not suffice to appeal to an intrinsic or self-evident goodness of etiquette. Etiquette requires some degree of force to ensure that agents abide. The use of firearms is a tool of coercion within a culture to enforce social norms. The social norms vary between cultures, such that gang culture can use firearms to enforce etiquette suitable for the culture's needs.
We had committed considerable resources and held quite a bit of land, in the military sense. Vietnam was another example of a failed occupation/police action. Or do you think that if we had "stayed the course" that we'd be winning now? Were we winning prior to the scale back of troops?
I wouldn't say so. I would say that the Taliban won that fight, and continues to win. The reasons why are numerous and complicated, but it's a fair example of an organized force defeating a more advanced organized force all the same.
Not that that's a tragedy, by my lights. I don't think the US should be in the business of policing the world to spread goodness, etc. etc. It's better to look at it as a loss and cut our losses than to think there's some kind of achievable goal in "fighting terrorism" and continue to dump resources into that goal.
I told you back in the days of Saddam Hussein, that the NEXT skirmish that breaks out, the USA will not respond to. That we have had enough and need to pick up our marbles and go home.
It is time for another country to be the World Leader and it looks like Putin is trying to fill that vacuum. Good man, yes? :s
192,000 US soldiers would probably be enough to secure Baghdad and some 500 sq. km around it and not much else.
You'll note, that back in the day when people still stole land from each other through war, conquering an entire nation was rather rare, especially on the time scales we're considering here. It's only with the advent of the nation state, that through capitulation this has changed. Now, if you're dealing with a tribal society, that has no allegiance to a central government, the idea of "conquering and holding" Iraq was laughable really. Same with Afghanistan. You can get a few tribes and their territory under your bootheel and that's it.
That doesn't make sense. You started that "skirmish". Or war, as some people fondly refer to it.
I have two lovely books, if that be our preference, titled "150 questions for a Guerrilla", where a General Alberto Bayo -- who helped train Che, though I'm ignorant on the specifics of that -- lays out some basics of Guerrilla warfare for a rank-and-filer, and "FM 31-21" -- an old field manual written by the Army on how to conduct and support (and therefore reverse engineered to combat) guerrilla warfare. Not that this guarantees any sort of victory. But it shows that I'm at least not alone in the opinion that military victory is not solely a function of technological capacity to kill.
Is this what we are disagreeing over? Or are we just disagreeing over the particular example I used?
I think licensing requirements to be a firearm distributor is where policy makers interested in tackling the issue -- rather than pandering to their base -- should target.
Though I suppose you might say they are cleaner, because at least then we actually acquired land for the murder we perpetrated. There was something of a reasonable cause. These are more ideological, and therefore unwinnable, than all that.
Of course there are many other factors involved but "all things being equal", the more technologically advanced party will win from the other. The problem with the examples given is that the conditions for victory were totally unrealistic. If you want to control a country, you need to hold it. If you want to hold it, you need boots on the ground. Whatever much guerrilla warfare did accomplish in Iraq, it already went wrong because not nearly enough people were committed to holding Iraq.
And in all honesty, I don't think the US can field enough soldiers to occupy it precisely because of the decentralised cultural heritage of the area and the geographic distance between the US and Iraq.
Tactically, guerrilla warfare is difficult to fight against, especially if your condition of victory (strategy) is occupation. If you do want to occupy an area that isn't a nation state (and even then you can screw it up), the concept of timescale would have to radically alter (decades instead of years) and you need to fight for it inch-for-inch, take and hold, and not think you can get it all in one fell swoop by toppling the leaders and occupying a few large cities.
It's when we get to Jackson that we, as a nation, can be said to have begun our conquest and annihilation of the Native Americans. Jackson was not a Founder. Regardless, I was referring to America's propensity to impose it's power across the seas, not from sea to shining sea, as that seems to have been the focus of the thread.
But, fair points. There's still a difference to be had in my characterization and Action Jackson. And I am certainly way off topic at this point too ;).
I would suppose that somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon somebody must have worked out approximately how many soldiers are needed to control a city of 4 million, and how much materiél will be needed, and so on. True? False? Anybody know?
Just guessing, but it seems that to control Baghdad (about 4 million in 1987) 200,000 troops would not be excessive -- that's 1:20, but if one is dealing with a discombobulated population that doesn't like each other about as much as they don't like the occupier, that would be about right. To control and manage Iraq we would have needed roughly 1.5 million troops, or about 1/10 of what we deployed during WWII.
Clearly a draft wasn't going to fly for Iraq. We were using national guard troops as an expedient alternative to drafting. No disparagement intended, but the national guard system is made up of weekend soldiers who have lots of concurrent commitments elsewhere, like entirely civilian careers, families, etc. Some of the men in the national guard were relatively elderly--again, no insult intended, but these were not 20 year olds in for 2 years and then out. The wear and tear on the multiply re-deployed national guard troops was pretty severe.
All people are reckless under stress. Stress happens. Therefore people carrying guns are dangerous to me. Guns need to be banned and then those who keep them will be criminals we can put in jail before they kill somebody.
My father used to go to bed with a 38 at his bed side, and I know several others who still do. I have nothing against guns for hunting, target practice and for protection, but I do not think machine guns, grenades or other idiotic weapons should be available. I like shotguns, clay pigeons.
There seems to be a left leaning portion of society that condemns guns on the basis of the actions of a few lunatics. At the same time, the right leaning portion of society asks others not to allow refugees into the country for fear that we may be letting in terrorists. In both cases we are judging the whole on the basis of the irrational actions of a minority of participants.
I wonder about how 'polite' society is possible today, we seem to be moving too fast to allow it.
People did occasionally get murdered in the parks--maybe 1, 2 or 3 per decade. One morning (1:30 a.m {+/-) I was sitting on my perch on a rail fence waiting for guys to saunter by. A young guy joined me on the rail. We chatted a bit, and among other things he told me he had a gun on him. I wasn't happy about it, but there was nothing much I could do or say at that point that would decrease any risk to life or limb. Eventually he moved on, and there were no murders there that night. I was mugged on a downtown street by a knife wielding drugged out zombie around 11:30 p.m
I've never owned or carried a gun in even gun-shot risky areas. Did I think I was somehow invincible? Could be, I suppose. I rarely feel particularly threatened, and have learned the hard way that the best approach in strange situations is to act like you belong there. Like, don't stand on a street corner turning in circles trying to figure out where you are. One might as well pin a sign on one's back: MUG ME.
I'm not a fatalist either: I expect things to turn out OK. For a hammer, every problem is a nail. For the armed person, every problem might require shooting. There is quite a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy if one is, or is not, carrying a gun. No gun, fewer people get shot.
Supposing that early morning in the park I had a gun handy and pulled it out, telling the guy to go back the way he came. Having done that, I would know that this now angry person might be waiting for me when I decided to leave the park (only one way out) and stepped onto the sidewalk under bright street lights. Bang bang, maybe. Dead crank.
You can't, but you can request deletion by flagging a post or otherwise contacting the site staff.
Quoting Cavacava
The problem is that they're not "lunatics" (well, some are, but countless aren't), and there's not just a few of them, there're loads of them. The one's that are judged to be "lunatics" get treated differently by law than others who've committed a crime (or crimes) involving a firearm.
Quoting Cavacava
Whether or not the objection is based on the actions of a minority of participants becomes far less relevant in light of both the number and frequency of occurrences [I]and[/I] the significance of the detrimental consequences.
While it is true that stress effects everyone, not everyone becomes "reckless" just because they are an armed citizen. I am not suggesting that everyone is capable of such judgement calls nor am I suggesting that innocent bystanders cannot be at risk but there is a risk ratio to consider.
How many innocent lives do you think one armed attacker could take, in a public place such as a supermarket, if 40 out of 100 private citizens are armed?
Carrying a firearm comes with a great deal of responsibility and judgement calls that sometimes have to be made in a 'split second' and considering the use of a firearm is never an easy one. Yes, some become reckless when stress arrives in a life and death situation but others are capable of channeling that stress into a heightened awareness of what is going on and make those split second decisions and it does save lives, sometimes without firing a shot.
A while back our US Representative for Arizona, Mrs.Gabby Giffords, was speaking at a local supermarket in her state where it is legal to carry a concealed firearm without a permit, when these events played out.
Reading this account illustrates the responsibility that actually has to be applied. "Pray you never have to use it, but be prepared to use it if you have to."
That is a very thought provoking statement. I think in some ways the political correctness that was ushered into society to show respect, encouraging politeness, has in a way allowed for people to feel offended by anything that goes against their own thoughts.
Aristotle taught us that it is a mark of an educated mind to entertain the ideas of others without taking them as our own. But it is almost as though the political correctness that was initially meant to include everyone respectively, has now become a convenient caveat to be personally offended, sometimes without notice to the offender.
It is interesting to read your feelings about someone sharing something so personal in that he was carrying a firearm and knowing that exact feeling from having gone through it myself. I think our reactions were very common and I think that is how most people do respond.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Quoting Bitter Crank
You are quite right in that you might very well have died that night because of one fatal mistake, the one that gives credence to the popular idea that if you have a firearm, it is more likely to be used against you than it will to save you.
The fatal mistake is that you NEVER pull a firearm as a use of intimidation. Period. The ONLY time you EVER pull/display a firearm is if you fully intend on using it because your life or the life of another is in imamate danger.
And how many innocent lives are at risk and/or are taken as a result of private citizens being armed? This greatly outweighs the benefit of preventing armed attackers from taking as many innocent lives as they otherwise would, so your point, yet again, fails to justify the legal system which allows such private citizens to obtain and carry such weapons in the ways that they do.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Yes, but the consequences of those bad judgements outweigh the consequences of those good judgements. This is evidenced by statistics. Here in the U.K. we have considerably less gun crime, and it isn't because our private citizens or police force is armed, since it's only special units which are armed, and we have very tight gun control.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Yeh yeh, responsibility [I]has to[/I] or [I]ought to[/I] be applied, but it ain't in countless cases, and that's the problem that you've failed to account for.
I guess your feelings are along the lines of "I wanna gun anyways, despite this massive problem".
I'm not sure why you haven't addressed any of my comments, by the way.
I am sorry, Sapientia. Please don't take it personally, as it is not intended that way. I will try to answer you now. Which post did you want me to start with? The first one or the last one?
No worries. I didn't take it personally. I just wondered why you hadn't replied. Start wherever you think most appropriate. I don't really mind.
— Cavacava
--Sapientia
Yes, I agree with this but it does not address the contradiction. The same can be said of the actions of Terrorists, their ideology claims a sacred origin, their killings are what the mediators of their god have said they ought to do. The importance of their ideological view point is "relevant in light of both the number and frequency of occurrences and the significance of the detrimental consequences"
It is an easy step to claim that all of Islam condones violence, and these terrorists are proof that violence is inherent in their faith. It is easy to say that the 'right to carry arms' is the cause of much of the violence we see in the United States, and it is easy to condemn gun owners as perpetrators of this violence.
It is the same sort of value judgement. We tend to judge a ideological group by the actions of its most radical elements. If differentiation is a basic instinctual force in culture, the radical describes the border of what is meant by labeling one a member of a group.
You said that my response doesn't address the contradiction, but I don't think that there [i]is[/I] a contradiction.
Quoting Cavacava
Just to be clear, that's taking my quote out of it's original context, and that's not a true analogy.
Quoting Cavacava
If in order to significantly reduce gun crime, tighter controls are required, and if some responsible gun owners miss out as a result, then so be it. That's a price I'm willing to pay.
It's not quite the same with your example of Islam. Guns are weapons designed for harm. Is that true of Islam? Is Islam a religion designed for harm?
We live in the age of progress. Progress has become a secular Ideal. We collectively and individually strive/desire to become richer, healthier, happier, finer people. We see how quickly science has moved, and we desire to advance humanly in a similar manner, with all the trappings that accompany our progress.
This Ideal moves us along, sets a direction which will never end. Keat's says
"Philosophy will clip an Angel’s wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine—
Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made
The tender-person’d Lamia melt into a shade."
The mystery of life is lost in our quest for explanations and along with it any sense of acting beyond the pro-functionary necessity of doing what is expected. As we look straight ahead, we lose what is tangential, off to the side. Politeness is a victim of this view, it becomes a hallow token of how we are expected to act, what we are expected to say. It loses its genuine character, y'all.
Well, supposing along with you. Suppose you go into that same park with a gun handy, and ready. You see someone sitting on that rail fence. You go up and sit next to the person start up a conversation and mention that you have a gun at the ready. You note the obvious consternation in the others face, so you shove off and move along.
I do like the drama you invoke, it is kinda funny that your hypothetical climatic end occurs under "bright street lights" and not in the shadows. :)
Whether or not those bad judgements, outweigh the consequences of the good judgements, all depend upon which side of the firearm you find yourself on. ;)
What works in the U.K. does not work everywhere, nor should you or I expect it to. Hell you can see that even as a Nation of States that have United, each State has it's very own philosophy on what will or won't find that balance between allowing people their constitutional rights to own a firearm and keeping that from being seen as a license to use a firearm recklessly.
As BitterCrank suggested the need to own, not just the right, varies WIDELY from State to State, region to region, of our nation. There is a difference between living in Chicago and never seeing a gun except a long barrel Dove hunter kind of gun and then those in uniform who arrive when trouble breaks out. To Arizona, a Western state where a lot of people enjoy the sport of shooting firearms, both hunting and on the range. I imagine BitterCrank rarely has a Javolina and her babies roaming thru his pasture of horses like I occasionally do. But regardless of the difference in locations, owning a firearm is a respected right and one that we as a State, choose to regulate according to a LOT of factors.
I am trying to make the point in this response, that although the USA is one Nation, we are really a Union of fifty individual States. Firearm control is just one of many threads that weave our individual States together as a Nation. Other stratifying threads include but are not limited to State laws on abortion, DUI levels, right to die, providing sanctuary for illegal immigrants, land control and management, enforcement of international border controls, cannabis use, ect. Each State makes and enforces their own laws as they see fit and some are in direct conflict with what the Federal Law states they must do.
I don't know how many 'special units' the U.K. has but it sounds like it is relative to the number of unarmed private citizens and your unarmed police force. Sapientia, the very idea of an "unarmed police force" is not viable option here in the USA. To have each State agree that their citizens be required to abandon their personal firearms is like trying to have a group of 'thinkers' agree 100% on a single view. It is just not possible, not wanted and each State chooses it's level of firearm control that it already has in place. Which is rarely acknowledged by those who choose to cast judgement on our gun rights, the fact that there ALREADY are laws controlling the ownership of firearms. The difference is that each State has control of it's own 'control' dial.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I don't agree that it's impossible, but things will stay that way unless there's change. And some things are more important than to depend upon the agreement of a state. If the disagreement of a state prevents justice, then that needs to change. If a state isn't competent enough to turn it's dial in the right direction, then the dial should should be turned for it, and set that way, so that it can't be tampered with so easily.
I believe that there can be progress in the right directon, and I don't think that it's right or productive to just accept the status quo, or worse, actively try to conserve it. It might not be easy, and sacrifices might have to be made, but it's a goal worth pursuing.
The fire under this debate is fueled by the "x" percentage of gun owners whose possession of firearms has the force of a sacrament, and the gun and ammunition manufacturing and sales industry. This industry is against gun control of any kind because it would place a steel ceiling on their growth potential. IF gun control were federal law, 200 million Americans would suddenly not be potential customers. The various manufacturers would have to settle for replacement sales, and very small growth -- mostly in hunting rifles.
Hunting is less popular now than in the previous decades. Vegetarians and PITA can not claim much credit for this. My guess is that easy access to areas where one can hunt available game is less now than in the past. The upper midwest is being overrun by deer, but if you have to fly in from New York City, it's just not convenient. Plus, it can take several outings to bag one.
Maybe about 16% (+/-) of the population (most of the sacramental gun owners) daydream about that glorious day when the government finally shows up on their doorstep to take away their guns (and their porn, drugs, unvaccinated children, unregistered dogs, illegally downloaded Beatles albums, untaxed cigarettes, etc.) and they heroically defend themselves against tanks, black helicopters, ICBMs -- whatever the guv'mint throws at them.
Wrong question. The question is (a) how much more likely is it that the 40 armed citizens will include a mass murderer intent on a gun massacre? And (b) what is the likelihood that a bunch of armed untrained people will wind up shooting innocent people rather than the shooter?
We know the answer. By having "armed citizens" we have gun massacre after gun massacre. And to think that other armed citizens will prevent it is not absurd.
First, because gun maniacs don't care if they get killed, so they'll have shot dozens of people before anybody turns a gun on them (unless you expect ordinary "armed citizens" to carry loaded cocked guns in their hands at all time). A man intent on killing others can walk up to a person with a holstered gun and blow his brains out before he even knows what's happening. And the idea that armed citizens are going to be constantly ready for an attack is scarier than having them unready. They'll be shooting people by mistake left and right.
And second, more to the point, when real gun violence occurs, untrained ordinary "armed citizens" usually freeze up and do nothing or they shoot an innocent person because gun violence is so disorienting. No untrained person -- and I mean anybody who doesn't have constant military training, day in day out -- can react rationally to a man suddenly pulling out a gun and shooting people down, with blood spurting everywhere.
To claim otherwise is simply magical thinking. We have the studies. Wonderfully, it's called "Killology". It is almost impossible for an untrained person to react in any useful way to a gun massacre. Only a trained soldier can. Anybody who claims otherwise has seen too many Rambo films.
I disagree with your trust in armed citizens and refuse to let my safety and the safety of my children depend on the judgement of gun nuts -- and that's what armed citizens are: gun nuts. They are insecure and untrustworthy. Almost all of them should be in jail before they harm themselves or others.
So has happened here in Europe after the Paris attacks. Avoid of any serious media scrutiny, the EU is now banning virtually all semiautomatic weapons including, even deactivated ones, and rushing this legislation through on lightning speed. It's not a ban on selling them anymore, but a ban that all weapons now would be confiscated. As an active reservist in my country (who doesn't own any guns myself), I know that this will severely effect the ability for reservists to train either themselves or to train shooting in voluntary reserve training, with reserve organizations or in the courses of the National Defence Training Association of Finland. And pity the 2 000 gun collectors in this small country. Actually only my country Finland and the Czech Republic have complained about this (see article: Finland files reservations about EU semi-automatic firearm ban) with Sweden also complaining about the consequences it will have on hunting (something that Finland worries too).
The reason is simple. Central Europeans don't hunt. Shooting isn't a popular hobby. Nor do the countries have a reservist armies. When a potentially large voting segment doesn't own guns, gun laws can be done the way the anti-gun lobby wants. And implemented when a terrorist strike or similar shooting takes place. Gun owners are seen as gun nuts, as Landru said.
Perhaps for people to understand this, think about that there should be legislation and laws passed on large kitchen knives. Really, it's an important issue:
They are very dangerous and a lot of people are killed by kitchen knives and knives in general. The statistics are likely to be awful. Even Bitter Crank here was assaulted/mugged with a knife. A lot of accidents happen with them too. Hence people should have mandatory training. People who have a criminal record of assault or have severe mental problems or are linked with terrorist groups should not have the ability to buy knives that can easily kill a human being. How should this be implemented? Having a licence. Having regulation. Here's how:
- Official never, ever talk about "kitchen knives" or "knives" but refer only to cold weapons. Knives are cold weapons and to talk about weapons gives the correct attitude towards these lethal objects. The discourse, the words that are used, is important!
- Start with the largest cold weapons that people don't have: swords, machetes and so on. Basically people have a negative view towards machetes or the small switchblades. Once they are banned or regulated, you can start building the legislation.
- Push the cold weapons legislation through when a gruesome murder or manslaughter happens with these cold weapons. Especially if children are killed or maimed intentionally or accidentally, use this to get through the legislation. Show pictures of mutilated people from Rwanda genocide and tell how that was done by cold weapons.
- Attack those who say that this kind of legislation is government interference, nanny-state actions or that the "knives are part of life in the kitchen". Denounce this attitude as ignorant, old fashioned and simply dangerous. People have to understand how dangerous to society cold weapons are.
- Pay some well known chefs to promote the legislation and to show just how easy it's to get this licence and how much it can help in fighting domestic violence and crime ...and terrorism. Also have people interviewed in television commercials that have been attacked by cold weapons and who's story is very sad. Have slogans like "The scars tell the truth... support cold weapon legislation!"
Asking people to give up guns is asking them to give up power. This is difficult for anyone, not just Americans like Tiff, especially if no one else around them is doing the same.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
I think the 'not' is a typo. I agree with your post by the way.
Yes, but like I've said, this should nevertheless be a price that we should be willing to pay for the greater good. My sympathy only goes so far. Those who are unwilling to let go are part of the problem. If there are obstacles in the way of vital progress, then we should be looking at how best to overcome them.
Truth be told -- in most combat situations training doesn't do much in terms of missing, it just makes you less worse as opposed to actually good. Being shot at sucks, period -- even if you're a crack shot. Additionally there are tactics which aren't necessarily meant to connect to a target, so you have to take that into consideration -- but on the whole most discharges do not hit their target.
That's a snippet from the report up there. It shows hit percentage in a firefight, meaning the officer believed his enemy also had a firearm (they don't necessarily have to have a weapon, belief is enough to drop the hit-percentage), with the year for the NYPD. Everything I've looked at tells a similar story. ((One of the many reasons why arming teachers in schools is one of the worst ideas to ever be broached))
In the US there's an "ugly incident" about once a week, so this is off base.
Here's a concept: if knives are so effective, let's ban guns and everybody who wants to carry knives can do so (they can do so now). You can feel safe and sound carrying your knife. Frankly, I'm not afraid of a man with a knife for a variety of reasons, mostly because I can run away from him, or hit him over the head with a chair. Not so with guns, which is why guns are the weapon of choice for mass murderers.
But let's be clear, banning guns will not end violent crimes against individuals. People will also find a way to kill cheating husbands, rich aunts and unpleasant neighbors. What it will end (as the UK and Australian bans show) is gun massacres. And gun massacres are crimes against the entirety of society, not against particular individuals. That's reason enough to ban guns.
"It's really hard to shoot a man, especially if he's shooting back" - Little Bill, Unforgiven.
Yep. The notion that "armed citizens" untrained and unready for a gun fight are going to calmly draw their guns and shoot down bad guys is preposterous. Most will do the natural things - freeze and pee their pants. Some will shoot their foot. Some will confusedly shoot anybody near by.
Studies show that normal people in a gun fight simply are not cognitively capable of calmly doing anything. Only highly trained people (soldiers) and abnormally homicidal people do well. Needless to say, the last thing we need is more psychopaths with guns.
Furthermore, what is the logic that if there is a terrorist attack in France (with actually the terrorists using full automatic weapons that are illegal), then army reservists shouldn't here have the ability to train shooting as they have been able before? If either there is a terrorist strike or someone with severe mental problems makes a bomb attack or goes on a shooting spree, why is it then logical to make training possibilities for reservists more difficult?
And in this country you don't get a permit for any gun for "self defence". The right of self defence is totally different from the American law. If you use a gun for "self defence" it's very likely that you will go to jail. If somebody kills a burglar that has entered your home, that somebody will extremely likely go to jail for "use of excessive force" and simply for "manslaughter". Using a firearm for personal defence here will be seen as use of excessive force. In fact there are a multitude of things that you are not allowed to use for self defence.
Landru the chairfighter.
An event defined as a genocide that happened in our time only a few years ago, actually, was basically carried out with knives. So mass murder with knives has happened. Besides, with knives far more Americans are killed than with rifles, shotguns and other guns than handguns (see FBI statistics). Only with handguns more people are killed than with knives in the US. So why the carefree attitude against the second most lethal weapons in the US?
Yes, there is in fact a mass gun killing about once a week in the US. Sometimes more, sometimes less. But we have mass killings every week. It doesn't have to be a Columbine to be a mass killing.
As to terrorism, it's almost always carried out with guns.
So my offer stands, let's ban guns and you can feel save clinging to your knife. It doesn't bother me, so I'm perplexed why you're trying to argue that I should be more worried about knives than guns. If you're sure knives are so effective, you shouldn't care if we ban guns.
Yeah, that's the critical issue: training reservists. Jeez, that's a new low for the gun nut argument.
Great, let's ban guns in the US.
Hey look kids, a non sequitur that has nothing to do with lone killers wrecking havoc on our society!.
Back to the issue. If you think knives are so great, you can keep yours. Let's ban guns and you can cling to your knife for security. Frankly, if somebody attacks a group of people in a theater with a knife, they'd look funny when it wound up sticking out of their ear. But like I say, if you're so convinced knives are so dangerous, you shouldn't mind if we ban guns.
So I say again, banning guns stops gun massacres - the UK and Australian experience proves that. And that's reason enough to ban guns. Those so insecure that they can't go to Starbucks without a weapon, you can cling to a knife.
Actually so reasonable that Finland officially had it, the training of reservists, as the main reason why they have problems with the EU's proposal.
I'm wondering just who has the new lows for nut arguments here, because I'm not sure that you are even replying to what I'm writing about.
What a pecular notion...that only under the threat of violence are people civil.
I disagree.
People are civil in spite of the threat of violence...not because of it.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't care what Finland does. But if you think you're going to hold off Russia with hand guns, I think you would feel at home in some whacky rightwing militia in the US.
And your point is that "Ban guns and we don't have gun massacres": that some loonie cannot shoot and kill randomly innocent people, because he could buy a gun at the nearest supermarket. And naturally you don't give a damn what other effects a total gun ban would have. Who cares about the gun nuts. Who cares about the technical details, ban them all. Stop gun massacres.
Yet your point actually exactly shows my point: this is the way how gun legislation is discussed and focused. Exactly through "gun massacres". The truth is that these highly publisized tragedies are, as you Landru unintentionally show, the way the whole thing is discussed. Far more realistic debate would actually look at how and where the majority of accidents and lethal use of guns happen. It's been discussed in earlier threads quite well.
Quoting Landru Guide UsStrawman Landru. Feel safe with your nuclear deterrence.
The ability to use one's personal weapon is a basic and fundamental ability to any soldier. And there simply aren't enough refresher excersizes given by the armed forces, which the defence minister has acknowledged (statistically a reservist selected to frontline combat troops will be called only once to a refresher excersize after the conscript duty in the 5-10 years he or she is deployed to those frontline units). Voluntary training is important. So apparently by Landru's thinking both the interior minister and the defence minister here are gun nuts and whacky rightwing militia candidates, as the both have firmly objected the EU plan.
Anyway, my point is that gun legislation is far more complex issue, as the Finnish example shows with the EU ban. Bans shouldn't be hastily applied right after a dramatic event with few if any preparations without any thoughts on just what the effects will be at large. Yet this doesn't mean that there shouldn't be restrictions at all on gun ownership. The whole thing is a bit similar on how "anti-terrorism laws" are pushed through also. Right immediately after a terrorist attack without any debate on what kind of effect they will have on personal liberties.
Besides, Finnish gun controls are far more stricter than anything in the US. Here's a discription of how you get a gun permit here.
First, one simply cannot get a permit for a "military like" semi-automatic rifle (which the EU now wants to ban) as your first gun permit. No way. Likely what will go through is something like a .22 calibre sporting rifle (or pistol). And to get even that one is difficult: If you have any kind of criminal record, anything in your youth even without violent behaviour etc, it's likely you will not get any permit. A handgun permit is obtainable only after 20 years of age and if you can show that you have already practiced shooting for two years. You have to provide evidence for the police of either your hunting or shooting hobby (for example a hunting licence) and provide details just where you are going to practice shooting or hunt. Basically you need to show that you belong to some hunting club or shooting club and have endorsements from these organizations. After this you have to pass a feasability test with 260 questions looking at your suitability, your psychological feasability and your appropriateness to have guns. Any kind of mental problems (or anything similar) will stop you from obtaining a license. Sometimes even being overweight can be looked as a problem... or something as irrational. Here there is much confusion on just what makes a person "feasable" to have a gun permit and what not. The police will interview you twice. Then you have to go and show the actual gun that you have bought to the police. After this you will get a permit for two years or so. If you do something stupid in those two years, you'll lose the gun permit. You have then to apply for a continuation of the permit.
As it's difficult to get these licences, hence one option has been to train shooting in a reservist organization or in the courses National Defence Training Association of Finland (MPK), which provides supplemental military training for all citizens above 18 years. Might sound strange at first, but this comes from the Finnish constitution: the constitution here states that every citizen has the obligation to defend the country. Before this meant that basically any 18 year old Finnish citizen could go to the courses of the National Defence Training Association and get military training and even shoot a full automatic assault rifle of the Finnish army (usually not on full auto). But after a school shooting incident, which didn't have anything to do with the association or this kind of training, this was stopped. Still semi-automatic rifles are still used with courses with reservists. The EU ban will stop any kind of training either individual gun owners, with reservist organizations or with the National Defence Training Association, that basically trains about 34 000 people every year in it's courses, basically the same number or more than the armed forces trains reservists in refresher excersizes.
Here's a video of women (that likely haven't gone to the military, likely many that are thinking about voluntary service) getting training in handling wounded in a course of the defence training association. They are issued with Finnish army assault rifles without magazines (alongside full military gear). Earlier they likely would have had the chance to shoot them using real bullets during the course.
I agree with much of what you've said here, but I don't know if I'd apply the same cultural influences to everyone in the South. The Celtic culture has been blamed for the southern violence, which was most notable in Appalachia after the Civil War.
It seems a stretch to blame black violence in the north on their southern roots from hundreds of years prior. It's also hard to associate black violence with the Southern Celtic culture because the Celtic culture and southern black culture were not intertwined. The black population was centered in the plantation regions and not in the poor mountain regions where the Celtic culture was. Appalachia is overwhelmingly white and extremely poor (other than the city folk who have bought vacation mountain cabins).
I also have a problem relating gun violence in rural communities with urban violence in cities. The former arises over exaggerated honor and pride and the latter over money and drugs.
But, I do agree that the South is a particularly violent region, which likely has as much to do with historical educational failings, racial disparity, and poverty than anything else. That being said (and I've not looked at the figures), I would suspect that over time the South's numbers will improve because of major population shifts southward.
Quoting SapientiaActually it does.
It goes to the real question of just what is an armed society? What's the reason for a society to be armed? To defend against whom? I think it's interesting to view the subject from the international point of view, and not just focus in the US. The US has quite a unique and very different culture starting with the second amendment, and the interesting interpretation of it, it is so totally different from other countries. The US idea starts from the individuals defence, at least nowdays, and not a collective defence. Because there are obvious differences, but also similarities, it's interesting to view other countries (even if I can understand some don't care a damn about other places). For example in Israel the officials/politicians have really thought of easing gun laws to help defend the Jewish community from terrorist attacks (see here.)
Switzerland has a genuine militia system and the government has issued assault rifles to it's reservists to be kept at their home. Earlier they even had ammunition. These Swiss army rifle consist about over half of all weapons that the Swiss people have. And the crime statistics are totally different from the US. So are homicides or even accidents with firearms.
(Carrying rifles in Switzerland, in back without magazines)
(Open carry in the US: rifle in hand, magazine on and finger close to the trigger as patrolling a combat zone...)
Yet have mass shootings happened in Switzerland? Yes. Have they happened here in Finland? Yes, here twice with the two shooters perhaps even knowing each other, both having mental problems and the first one being obsessed with the Columbine shootings. (Before that nothing in history) Yet when deciding on gun laws, should they really be made to prevent something as seldom happening as a mass shooting and even terrorist strikes, which use illegal guns?
There was an "if". I asked: if the proposal goes through, then was your point not that gun controls ought to then be relaxed (by having the law reversed/reformed) in order to avoid the problem of reservists not being sufficiently trained? You didn't directly answer my question.
As for [I]how[/I] gun controls are "done", I think whether or not they work, and how well, is more important.
Quoting ssu
An armed society is a society that's armed. The following questions are more relevant and interesting, but I was more concerned with whether or not gun controls ought to be tightened in places where the current gun controls are arguably not tight enough. Although I suppose that kind of relates to the sort of questions that you asked above.
Quoting ssu
Yes. Preventing mass shootings and terrorist strikes is definitely a goal worth pursuing. Like Landru Guide Us, I'm considerably less sympathetic to the woes of Finnish reservists than I am to those affected by mass shootings and terrorist strikes.
(What has to be understood is that Finland isn't at all being totally against the new EU gun laws rushed now in on the wake of the Paris attacks, but only certain aspects of it. Hence it's not in the position, or it doesn't want, to stop the process altogether. Laws can be different in EU countries.)
Does that answer your question?
Quoting SapientiaFirst you should ask what is your intention with tightening the gun controls.
I personally find it a bit confusing to focus on such rare events like mass shootings, because the vast majority of shootings happen in totally different circumstances. Most likely a fatal shooting is a suicide. And if we look at the US, apart from the homicide rate, what I find is more worrisome is the high level of firearm accidents and accidental shootings in the US. That is way over the accident numbers in other countries. Hunting accidents are at a normal level (even with Dick Cheney there), hence the high accident levels simply happen because a lot of people have handguns for their personal defence in the house and guns are loaded. I would consider legislation that handles the actual reality of the most likeliest tragedies and problems and not the few cases of lunatics going on a shooting spree, which has more to do with the media coverage and mental health care system.
And If 1 700 people are murdered in the US using cold weapons (knives etc.) compared to the 6 000 with handguns, then are those 1 700 unimportant? Having legislation on cold weapons, training courses, etc. will definately have some effect to lower the statistics. Training would improve just how people use them (and hence lower accidents). But then are you personally willing to pay for a licence and a training course to buy a new kitchen knife? The reason here, is that kind of legislation would affect everybody, Landru and you, and not only the gun owners. In today's world it's so easy to ban or limit something that hasn't got any effect on your own property.
Quoting SapientiaPreventing terrorist strikes will not happen by gun laws.
Quoting SapientiaWell, I don't live there and what does American gun legislation effect me here in Northern Europe? And why should then terrorist attacks in France or mass shootings in the US have an effect here on training of the military? I think the gun laws should be decided by country-by-country. That's the basic reason for have nations in the first place.
And If we have had here two actually "mass shootings" with combined number of eight deaths and nothing else ever, basically one event of America inspired copycats, both using a .22 handgun (similar type used in Columbine), is then the prevention of that the actual focus of gun legislation? Gun laws were tightened after that (with feasability tests). Yet every fourth household has a legal gun and there are 1,6 million legal guns and only 5 million people. Why then the 20 000 semi-automatic rifles owned by the people or reservist organizations pose after Paris such a mortal threat? Or the thousands of deactivated military rifles hanging as memorabilia on people's walls?
Besides, I view it as a good thing here that the government somehow still trusts it's citizens to take on such a huge role in something like defence and have voluntary military training. It's very rare in our modern world where government or the state is simply viewed just a provider of services through taxes (and debt finance) that is then done by paid workers. Reservists here do have a major role with about 95% of the wartime forces being them and not professional soldiers.
Legislation made in a rush, that hasn't gone the ordinary way through hearings usually ends up being very bad. We already have had even here the influence of the "War on Terror" and "Patriot Act". Because basically now according to legal experts the worst thing ever you can do in Finland, which can give you the most time in jail, isn't a mass murder rampage, but actually giving financial support to terrorist organizations. This kind of hilarious consequence that multiple first degree murder basically you get less jail time than for giving money to a terrorist organization just shows the confusion when these pushed through and not well thought laws.
Actually I'm sure Ronnie would have refrained from shooting and he regrets what happened here. But I've seen more chaotic and less funny videos of confrontations.
From exactly the same site that you took the parking dispute gone bad news: Police: Man stabbed to death for taking last piece of chicken. That's what happens when cold weapons are in everybody's reach.
If that were true then you shouldn't mind guns being banned, since you can cling to "cold weapons" just as desperately.
But of course you're talking nonsense. It's really hard to bludgeon or stab a man to death, not to mention several men, and they can always run away (as this guy probably could have if only a knife were involved). And of course most people survive stab wounds. In contrast it's relatively easy to pull a trigger and kill a man . . . or two . . . or three.
So this is another counterfactual and bad faith argument from the gun nut chorus.
By the way, love the chair fighter reference. I can easily beat a guy with a knife if I have a chair. If the guy has a gun, not so much. But continue with your gun porn. It's a disease.
Tie a knot.
You are for a total ban on guns, yet you don't see any problem with knives. In fact to even ridicule and belittle what danger they are. And in your totally black and white world anybody pointing at anything else about gun legislation than total ban are gun nuts.
If there's some problems with the regulations, for example for hunters, shooting sport or even training military reservists as here will be, you don't simply care. Who cares, because they are the repulsive gun nuts. You simply fail to understand that somewhere else the discussion about gun legislation isn't as inflamed and as adversarial as in the US between those who are in "for" and are "against". That somewhere else the gun nuts have accepted regulation and basically understand regulation ...and haven't an ideological point coming out of a interpretation of the constitution and act like the NRA. But of course, you don't care at all about that.
Legislation made on an emotional basis without any consultation of those who actually the law effects is simply bad legislation in my view. Yes, lobby groups of gun owners or shooting sport association might find restrictions bad, but at least there should be some rationality. And when the objections to gun restrictions are made by both the interior minister and the defence minister, their argumentation isn't about gun owners rights, really.
I have come to the conclusion that most, if not all, of society's problems is a result of bad parenting, or a lack of parenting. Being polite has to do with if you were raised to be polite. Whether you were raised to be polite can effect how you interact with others in the future, whether you own a gun or not. If your parents didn't love you enough to teach you to be polite, and you end up owning a gun, then we have problems like we do here in the U.S. where these particular kinds of people end up being impolite with their gun. Most gun-owners are polite, responsible gun owners, not because they own a gun, but because their parents loved them enough to teach them how to interact with other people in a productive way. Impolite people who don't own guns exhibit their impoliteness in other ways (verbal abuse, selfishness, etc.)
Removing all the guns in a society won't solve the impoliteness in a society. I would argue that raising a child is a much bigger responsibility than owning a gun. If we're going to decide who can own a gun or not, shouldn't we be consistent and also decide who can have kids or not?
If you look under "Projection" in the encyclopedia of Psychology, you'll find excerpts of gun nuts claiming gun control advocates are too emotional
I'm glad they didn't have knives!
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting.html?_r=0
In my view the basic reason for gun legislation to be so heated in the US is that the second amendment has made gun control a far bigger issue for many than just the guns in the US, and hence the gun lobby approaches the issue quite differently as for example here. Especially the Supreme Court decisions have made this a far different thing than basically something to do with the defence of the country (which I suspect the actual idea was with the second amendment).
Now gun control never has been such a hot potatoe in Europe, but for example nuclear power has (which is naturally a different topic).
I assume that when people talk here about armed society they think of a society where people carry arms for their personal protection basically against other members of the society. The politeness is then more like prudence or simply or caution. It's common sense not to start picking a fight with somebody who is armed. This kind of caution masked in politeness is naturally present... for instance with diplomats. They usually are really polite people, but that politeness is also prudence. They usually are polite because upsetting personally a representative or a leader of another country can really have disasterous consequences, even if it doesn't mean that the two countries go to war.
If then again the arms of for example to prevent a bear attack in the Wilderness of Alaska, it's a bit different as then the potential threat is totally different and doesn't imply that there is something wrong in the society. And here I have to give an anecdote: Here's a quote from the guide about bears and humans from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources:
(Pepper sprays are even said to work against Polar bears. I wouldn't try...)
If then the arms of the society are for state's defence purposes for an potential external aggressor, then again it is different. And so it is also when the society is rural and hunting is very common. If on the other hand on class or ethnic group is armed to defend from others in the society, then this society has huge problems. How many firearms there are don't correspond with how much violence there is as there a multitude of factors why some society may have or lack social cohesion and may be violent or peaceful. If there's easy availability to guns and there are problems in the society, sure, there will be more violence than without the guns. And to say the obvious, if their is a necessity to be armed, something is wrong...
(An civilian vigilante group in Mexico)
More gun porn fantasies. As if people so insecure that they need to carry guns to a Starbucks are likely to act "prudently".
You might want to hold your fire, so to speak. The "armed polite society" was most certainly at play in this shooting, you are just choosing to focus on those with an agenda, to harm innocent people using firearms AND explosives in this case.
Where is your call for laws against fireworks where enough explosives can be extracted from to cause mass casualties?
Where is your call for every remote controlled toy car to be destroyed because it was going to be used as tripping device on the explosives?
The firearm is easy for you to rail against because it cannot rail back. How about looking at the people behind the firearms first?
I can't see what you wrote, but you said an armed society is wary and cautious, and indeed, the primary purpose of arms is 'security' - but what does that really mean? One need ask what is feared and why and what underlies this lived sense of personal insecurity. It's a deeply psychological question, because there are those who go about unarmed that, even realising they are in a dangerous world, indeed bulleting along on what amounts to speck of dust in the galaxy, who feel quite secure personally, and hence, have no inclination to arm themselves since there is no immediate real and present threat to their lives.
I merely conclude that people shooting each other is impolite, and there are much less harmful ways to be rude.
"I merely conclude that people shooting each other is impolite, and there are much less harmful ways to be rude."
Emily Post suggests we not shoot each other. Bad etiquette. Right.
The following graph I find interesting. Because to put it simple, there's not actually a direct correlation between gun deaths and gun ownership. The fact is that "gun deaths" is a more complicated issue than just the density of guns. Yet obviously the more popular guns are, it's likely that someone that really shouldn't have one ends up having them. And more accidents there are. I would argue that with some well thought legislation the situation could be radically improved in the US. Because banning all handguns (etc.) or similar drastic things aren't reality. Unluckily the debated is so agitated that much won't happen. Just look at the tone here even on a philosophy site.
The most ludicrous aspect of it all is that terrorist attacks (like Paris) and these kind of media frenzies give both ammunition to the anti-gun lobby and then have Americans buying guns with record numbers (see Black Friday 2015 was record day for gun sales). And hey, there's coming a new Gun TV! See GunTV, America’s First 24-Hour Firearm Shopping Channel, Set for 2016.
Then on the other hand, crime is coming down in the US.
Oh, dear, this gun fetish meme.
Fireworks are probably more regulated than guns in the US. In any case, if you think fireworks are such great weapons you shouldn't mind a gun ban - buy fireworks. I've notice most mass killers don't use fireworks; they use guns - I wonder why?
Of course, fireworks have utility beyond killing people. Guns are designed to kill people.
Now, lets all wait for the next gun meme, maybe something about how cars kill people.
Insecure people tend to be violent, not prudent. That why they're so whacked out they need guns to buy coffee at Starbuck's
Answer: C. A brain with a gun fetish and a gun
Besides, The most likely people that end up having accidents with guns or shooting people have other difficulties in their own life. People that have mental problems, excessive moods swings and are extremely impulsive really don't make good gunowners. Now can this be done away with feasability exams, having to go to the doctor to get an OK pass for to get a gun licence? It's problematic, but sure, to make it really an effort to buy a gun will put off many people. Yet any system won't work optimally: some will really be treated unfairly and some who shouldn't get guns will obtain them. Then of course there is the question of a black market. How easy is that when the country is already filled up with guns?
Your argument reduces to a claim that gun restrictions can't be perfect; therefore why have them? Do I really need to rebut sophistry like that?
Let me help: Guns are dangerous instruments designed to kill people. People who think they need guns to go about in society are thinking about killing people. They are not to be trusted and normal citizen (like myself) have a right to be protected against these goofballs. Therefore, guns should be banned and then we can arrest the people who violate the ban knowing they are intent on killing people, before they actually kill people.
It's that simple. Works in the UK and Australia.
The indisputable fact is, if you scratch a gun advocate, you'll find a person who really wants to kill somebody.
That's a bit too far of an exaggeration, Landru. I'd just highlight here the point I made awhile back that you can't somehow escape violence in our society -- even if you prefer to delegate violence out. I'll note that in spite of the difficulties surrounding weapon ownership I still prefer to own weapons, and keep it that way.
I'm sure there is bound to complex social issues involved, like socioeconomic determinants for example, and to really get to bottom of it in terms of good legislation will be a quagmire of buck passing that places blame somewhere other than governance - usually ends up being 'individual responsibility' in some way. Placing the person as the cause and locale of problems is the usual tactic to distract from the broader issues of 'gun-culture'. They say, 'Guns don't kill people. People do', basically, but we don't go on to consider, 'but why exactly do they kill each other'. One could say that people merely fill subject positions which are prescriptively availed by the social body, and we could inquire into how killers with guns are written into the social discourse.
The first problem we need to solve is how to reduce purely domestic, civil gun violence among the demographic groups that represent a disproportionately large share of the shooters and the shot.
The second problem we need to solve is is how to limit access to guns by the relatively small number of people who are deranged, mentally very unstable, delusional, and paranoid. (This can not be done with inadequate forensic psychiatric services.)
The third problem we need to solve is how to limit access to guns by the larger number of people who are engaged in criminal enterprises.
The fourth problem we need to solve is how to identify potential terrorists. (Terrorism might be scarier than routine run of the mill killings, but the far greater danger is from the low-lifes running around shooting at each other.)
The fifth problem, really the ultimate one, is how to change our society from the shithole it is becoming for large numbers of people, to one toward which most people feel much more loyalty, commitment, and from which they get more satisfaction. This problem makes gun control look like child's play, because it involves reorganizing national priorities, drastic reform of tax law, domestic re-investment, and a batch of other things that the ruling class really isn't all that interested in doing.
A lot of stuff has to happen if we are to solve our problems. I wouldn't suggest anybody hold their breath.
There's a difference between a society with a police force and a militarized society where everybody is primed to engage in gun violence. One difference is that the latter consistently suffers from gun massacres and their public space is eroded. Which of course is the goal of the gun fetishists. Their attack is really on the notion of democracy and a public realm.
In any case, the proposition that a armed society (forced militarization of every citizen) is a polite society is utter and complete rubbish. It's just the opposite of course. And the opposite is the purpose.
Fortunately gun nuts aren't skillful maniacs -- that's why they use guns. And that's why we need to ban them.
But thanks for pointing out that explosive are dangerous, which is why we regulate them and the purchase of their constituent parts.
Here's a concept: you can buy an assault weapon at a gun store; you can't buy a explosive device at an explosive store. So if you're suggesting we should make it just as hard to buy a gun as to buy explosives, I'm with you. But you're not of course. You're just excusing gun violence by making an invidious comparison to dangerous devices gun nuts don't use because they're hard to use and because nothing excites a gun nut more than killing people with a firearm. Pretty lame.
I haven't mentioned explosives at all, but hand saws and Caustic Soda; both of which are freely available for purchase.
Then your point is even more attenuated. If you think that a guy with a saw and lye can cause as much death as a man with a gun, then you shouldn't mind banning guns. Arm yourself with lye and saws -- I hear they're just as deadly as guns. NOT!
But the proof's in the pudding: gun nuts use guns. It probably has something to do with how deadly they are even for unskilled dolts who worship guns. I suspect most people can run away from a man with a saw carrying ten kilos of caustic substances.
Take example from BitterCrank (or Throng above). They actually responded and made remarks to what I wrote and what I've been trying to say.
(One Canadian said to me once that Americans don't discuss issues in order to exchange ideas or viewpoints; they just pertinaciously and stubbornly repeat their own line and don't care what others say. Seems someone fits here into that category.)
You noted 5 well articulated problems. Gun legislation effects naturally every problem at least indirectly in some way. The biggest effect I see is the second problem, even if you correctly note that this is an health care issue too. Unfortunately how much an effective mental health care system prevents mass shootings we never can now. But actually if one really talks about gun deaths and to prevent them, then health care programs would be a major contributor to get the statistics down. Let's not forget that the majority of gun deaths are suicides. Sure, people can kill themselves easily by other means too, but proper health care can prevent suicides.
The third problem is difficult, because even now there are so many guns around in the US. Crime and for example gang related use of guns are part of the first problem you noted. Povetry is a cause for crime. Restrictions do work and so does police work, but the main cause is economic. Even if some people really want to be criminals, the majority just drift there.
So what could be done?
Well, you can hope that some massacre will create a opportunity to quickly put in some legislation, but that won't solve the thing. And not the political climate.
The first thing I think would be to try to change the self-defeating juxtapositional public discourse where this has become an issue that seems to divide by party lines. A good way would be to approach the legislation thing from the safety aspect. Starting from the fact that the US has statistically far too many accidents with guns than other countries have. That toddlers end up accidentally being killed with guns. Gun safety is something that even the NRA accepts. Approach the media here too. All those gun shows (or the new Gun TV) etc. wouldn't have a problem with it. Then approach the mentality just how and when to use guns. Like those people who are ready to fire their shotgun when somebody comes to their land. Yes, it may sound extremely lame, but the I think the main problem here is why nothing happens in the US is that everything in US politics has to be a fight and hence nothing goes through.
I prefer to deal with your gun fetish cliches as cliches
At the same time, we are a nation who respects all faiths, so please pray if you wish but prayers are not going to settle this war between humanities.
There are more possibilities than two, however. Most gun owners are not "militarized" -- and even those who are are no more militarized than our present day police force ;). Owning one's violence does not mean that you are militarized, either. It means that your choices to use violence are closer to home and harder to forget. I certainly don't call the police to my house.
What you present here is a false dichotomy, and not merely in some hypothetical sense. Gun ownership and usage is not an attack on public space or democracy. Many people own weapons without the fetishism you're targeting.
I've agreed to your first sentence, though I don't agree with the latter.
If I may be so bold to ask: why you don't call the police to your house?
Plus I've an anarchist streak through me, and so while I'm willing to work with the state, there's some personal disposition that just hates police in particular.
Today the talking heads suggested that the Police Officers we have on the street, are not only our first line of defense, but they are having to morph from being a Guardian of our promised security to being the Warrior that has to be willing to take a bullet for what is often a very unappreciative public that no longer trusts those who are called to "help".
Privately armed citizens are able to react within seconds of an attack, those we have to 'call in' might be able to arrive at an active shooter situation in somewhere between 5 and 15 minutes. The majority of the massacres are happening within the response time of a privately armed citizen, rather than a prolonged siege.
However there are in fact individuals who have lost their right to own a firearm. I am one of those people because as long as I am a Legal Medical Cannabis patient and Cannabis is still against the Federal Law, the gun dealer would have to decline the sale of a firearm to me, because in the Federal Governments eyes, Cannabis consumption is against the law and they cannot sell to someone they know is breaking the law.
Suggesting that our thought and prayers be with the victims is cheap grace. It's a ploy. It's an affront to both the victims and to the God to whom the prayers would be directed.
What the legislators should be praying for is the courage to do what any rational legislature would do, even if it means they are bounced from office in the next election: enact laws that tighten access to assault weapons and hand guns--laws that are as tight as the NRA's grip on these bastards' balls.
I am afraid that prayers are not going to give them the level of courage they need. It is going to take serious hard work, at every community level, to change anything regarding a limitation on firearms that are not already in place. Much like the Chinese Finger Puzzles, the harder the two ends pull, the tighter and smaller that middle ground gets.
We know the solution, right? One of the two opposing sides is going to have to willingly give in to the others idea in order to move anywhere. As divided as our country is, I just don't see the gun right advocates giving in and the sales of firearms and ammo since the attack in Paris are feverishly, perversely high. At the same time I do not see the gun control advocates backing down.
So tightly connected we are, stuck in the puzzle of our own making. Ironic thing about humanity is, that neither side will willingly give in, even though they know it is the only way to a compromise.
No reason to respond to you.
You just did.
Meanwhile, not a single post by the gun advocates here is anything other than debunked NRA memes. NEXT DEBUNKED RIGHTWING MEME!
Begging the question: Why? Why limit gun ownership and possession one case and not another?
If gun advocates really believe the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow us to limit guns in all sorts of reasonable ways, then they have to admit that it doesnt allow us to limit guns in all sorts of unreasonable ways.
A true gun advocate should argue that passengers on planes and courtroom observers, not to mention imprisoned criminals should be allowed to own and possess guns.
Fact is the 2nd Amendment is just like any other Constitutional right - subject to balancing. But you wouldn't know that from the virulence of the gun fetish advocates.
I'm simply following the logic of gun advocates, and it leads to forcing citizens to militarize.
If the proposed way to fight crime is to carry a gun and to be primed to use it at all times in a public space, you have essentially forced every citizen to militarize. And you have essentially destroyed the commons.
So my point is the proposition that an armed society is a polite society is exactly the reverse of the truth (which is the general strategy of conservative rhetoric). An armed society is a hostile, militarized, alienated society where might makes right and community is destroyed. This of course is the conservative agenda.
Those who want to inflict harm and kill will always find ways to do so. Mass shootings constitute a tiny percentage of total gun deaths.
I am not against tighter gun laws for the US. Here in Australia weapons are required to be registered, but citizens may still own them, even semi-automatic weapons. Tasmanian has the highest gun ownership, with, according to Wiki, 1 gun per 4 people. The Northern Territory is second with 1 gun per five. The problem is there is not a clear correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths.
Given the US has always been a 'society of the gun', I think a nuanced approach will be needed there, not an hysterically extreme 'black and white' approach; which you seem to be advocating.
Like all caricatures it's kinda funny, yet somehow sad :’( .
This situation is similar to a shooting in Chicago (from a year ago) in which an officer gets out of a squad car and in a few seconds shoots a young black male suspect (for something involving burglary, can't remember just what) who was running down the street, past the officer. The Chicago victim was not thought to have a gun. Shootings like this, of black men usually, are what infuriate the Black Lives Matter group.
Frequent gun fire in cities, frequent fratricidal killings by gangs and various criminal enterprises, gun ownership driven by fear of attack and fear that the police will fail to protect the community, high levels of suicide, undercounted non-employment, cutbacks in essential social support systems (the safety net), failing school systems, declining health outcomes (where that is happening), deep levels of chronic poverty, and so on are threats to the the liberty of a nation IN THIS WAY:
All these things undermine the average citizen's confidence in the institutions of society and lead them to be more susceptible to the harsher solutions offered by outright fascists, crypto-fascists, and proto-fascists. Is there a fascist plot in the works? I really don't know. I rather hope not--BUT, ineffectively controlled violence favors the development of fascistic groups. The militarization of police and the often disproportionate responses to any kind of resistance to the police are not typical of civil government.
I'm not blaming the heavy handed actions of the police alone. Liars, thugs, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels make their own hefty contribution to uncivilized life. They are not, generally speaking,any sort of force for good, civilizing influence, or democratic uplift movement. Neither are terrorists. Neither are mendacious, hypocritical, sanctimonious, devious, corrupt politicians. They all make it easier for some demagogue to step in and offer "simplification" with an iron fist.
Yes, Virginia, there is a Landru. Landru, an omniscient computer on the planet Beta III, had a near-tyrannical hold on Beta III's people until Captain Kirk put a stop to it. This is the way Landru wished to represent himself. Apparently Kirk wasn't quite as successful as he thought. Landru escaped from Kirk through an unguarded TV screen back in the 1960s. Just walked out of the screen into a state college dorm TV room and took over. A generation of leftist students was the result. There was infiltration and subversion. There were sexual outrages on campus. Lesbian separatists performing unspeakable acts on the Quad (It was quickly paved over -- literally - to contain the sacrilege. Sodomy in the stacks. Buggery back stage. Je suis l'homme -- well never mind.
The sense here is either counterfactual or irrelevant, depending on what you mean.
In fact those who want to inflict harm don't always find a way. They find guns. Guns are a really effective way to kill large numbers of people. Knives and baseball bats aren't (Now watch ssu stupidly cite Rwanda, which involves a huge gang not a lone killer -- wait he already did).
In any case, I already said that gun violence is unique. It destroys public space. Banning guns ends gun violence. The UK and Australia ban show that. End of story.
Will it stop a greedy nephew from murdering Auntie Jane for her money? No. But that's not what were talking about so if this is your meaning you're distracting.
You're being disingenuous. The Australia National Firearms Agreement banned what we would call assault rifles, except special cases, and those cases are very restricted. It banned the importation of such weapons, and parts, suchs a banana magazines. It bought back 20% of the guns in Australia, the equivalent of 40M in the US. If required gun owners to have standardized security for the guns, and required licensing with an ID. In short, it was close to a ban.
So why are you being disingenuous?
The UK has an absolute ban. Since it did so, it has had no gun massacres. Neither has Australia since the Port Arthur massacre resulted in the NFA. Neither has Ireland. Neither has Japan.
Conclusions gun bans work to stop gun massacres. Anybody who says otherwise is just a gun nut.
Does a gun ban stop all crime. Of course not. Nothing does. Crime is a complex social phenomenon. Gun massacres aren't. They're easy to stop: ban guns.
I love it when gun nuts project and talk about bans as hysterical.
I tell you what, go to a gun forum and propose the NFA, and see who acts hysterically. Gun nuts are weird people
Once you call out a gun fetishist, all he can do is sputter and blubber.
As I pointed out the NFA is effectively a ban. John is being disingenuous. But you and he can work it out. I bet if someone in Finland proposed an NFA you'd go all gun nut and say your rights are being infringed. It's what gun nuts do.
It's kind of funny that you're agreeing with John and don't have any idea what the NFA does. But than factual awareness is not a strong point of gun culture.
I'm trying to guide them, but like Kirk, they won't listen
Here's an "open carry" experiment in the US where a white guy carries a semi-automatic around and then a black guy carries the same weapon around. Both times the police stops the men (which is totally understandable), but the difference between how the police acts is obvious. Prime example of what "racial profiling" means in reality. The experiment was actually very dangerous ...and if you would have had a Middle Eastern guy with a beard, he would have likely been shot in my view.
The reaction cannot be because somehow policework is now more dangerous. The following graph tells it all just how dangerous being a policeman in the US has been. And no, it's not because the police is more trigger happy that the fatalities have gone down:
It really cannot even be the zero-crime-tolerance attitude or the "No-broken-windows" strategy. What I think it's basically comes down to is the "War on Terror" mentality (as I said before) where successfull Crimefighting means a "war against crime" that your ready to use lethal force all the time at the maximum. Hence the flakvests, assault rifles, SWAT gear. Hence if some police department doesn't have it's own SWAT team, heavy arsenal of weapons, it doesn't look like it's up to it's job. What if a terrorist attack happens and they aren't ready? It's this created atmosphere where the World has become far more dangerous than before. When it actually isn't.
Quoting Bitter CrankThis fear is basically what the police responds to with a more aggressive stance. And people have these worries, rightly or wrongly. Yet a highly publisized attack will have big consequences: like that the guards at the mall will have submachineguns and flakvests. Best example are the armed voluntary groups that have sprung up... for example to patrol the US Mexican border.
(Obviously a Superpower cannot secure it's borders, so civilians have do it themselves...)
There are a lot of limits on who can legally own and posses a firearm, I assure you that I am not the only person prohibited from doing so. If you are over the age of 18, you are allowed to posses a firearm unless you are disqualified by one of the nine categories listed below:
Though I felt slighted by the exclusion because of my medical choices, when I look at the others who are excluded under the same category, I understand and am amicable to the laws as they have sat since 1968.
Did I mention that all of the males here at the ranch are Archers as Marksman?
In case you are not an Archer, the arrow in the yellow ring, has another arrow shot directly into the first arrow. Not bad eh?
Now before we start controlling bow and arrows, let's remember that primitive bow and arrows can be found and forged from elements of the earth, the world over.
THE STRIP FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES
No, let's ban guns and keep bows and arrows. You just argued that they're as deadly as guns so you shouldn't mind. Stock up on bows and arrows.
Ah the absurdity of a mind on gun culture.
There is a particular community that exudes the characteristics that you are mocking, Landru. However, the majority of gun owners(in my experience) don't fall into that category. The reason people here calling you a troll is because you either don't see or pretend not to see this issue on a spectrum. It is not so perfectly black and white as you portray it.
Of course it isn't a black and white issue. There are all shades of gray from gun metal black to the faintest gray of smoke coiling out of the barrel.
If one fractions the 320 million American population into gun owners, then gun nuts, one ends up with maybe 13 million gun rights activists as a rough estimate. While 13 million is a small fraction of 320 million, it's still a lot of any kind of nut, whether it be the gun nut, anti-abortion nut, gay liberation nut, communist nut, or charismatic Anglican nut.
Pro-gun lobbying is carried out by a multibillion dollar industry. The interest of gun manufacturers is somewhat different the ideological gun nuts: The industry is about making money, and protecting access to a largely untapped market. 2/3 of adults don't own guns. The manufacturers don't want to see that potential market closed off by restrictive legislation.
Just consider the handgun business: more than 3,100,000 were manufactured in 2012. The list below is not exhaustive, and leaves out some of the military suppliers that also have products in the retail stream.
The fact that your politicians and their gun lobbyists are happy to have suspected terrorists owning guns as long as they can make money out of the situation should seriously disturb you. I can't think of any other developed country where politicians could get away with that level and type of corruption.
What I'm starting to be fed up with of is the total inability or incapacity to think about this issue, or any issue actually, in other than the idiotic juxtaposition of the US politically discourse that dumbs down everything to simple ranting about the opposite views. The most idiotic discourse is of course in the right-wing camp (perfect example is Trump), yet that doesn't mean that the other side is somehow ideal and constructive. The confrontational aspect of US discourse is the basic problem in the US. The ultimate reason for the confrontational attitude is simply that the two parties are actually ideologically very close to each other, basically making legislation for those who can pay for it, and hence they have this urgent need to portray themselves different. Hence gaining a consensus isn't an objective. Some Americans can really think with their own minds. The majority seem to be complacent with just reurgitating the lines dear to them, which basically boil down to loathing the other side. You cannot be anything else than a "pinko liberal" or a "gun-nut", obviously, you have to be basically either a republican supporter or democrat supporter. And if you come from a different political environment, where gun control is far more stricter and widely supported (even by yourself), who cares a sh*t? Your either a "pinko liberal" or a "gun nut GOP supporter".
Hence I don't have much hope for the US. If even in a Philosophy Forum any kind of serious talk what actually to do is impossible without ranting, it's obviously worse in other forums. And there's no solution in sight. The dumbing down of US politics has indeed been very successfull.
What a horrible topic!
(Time for a rant... as if that would be something new in this case...)
Can we put it into 'Philosophy of Religion'?
--------------------------------------
Anyway...
... I always thought that 'gun control' in the USA meant using two hands to fire a gun rather than just one.
--------------------------------------
For what it's worth:
http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015
Might I add that no guns where harmed in these shooting.
More fun to spin how you like... there's a stat for everyone, get 'um while they're hot!
---------------------------------------
Can we simply agreed that the human species is simply an irresponsible one?
If we are irresponsible with our toys, which works better...
...more toys or less toys or no toys or simply lessen the number of irresponsible people?
If the latter, then how?
Should we simply shoot them? :D
---------------------------------------
Now if we can only debate the merits of a religious order who advocates circumcision using an AK 47 vs. another religious order who advocates the use of a Glock 9 to perform the task instead? :s
---------------------------------------
Anyway...
... crap topics like this take the headlines when people seem to be under the misconception that there are idealistic absolute answers to questions which indeed are quite relative in nature.
Perhaps less of the ranting religious devotion to one side or the other, as if there are only two sides to the issue and look at who is holding the guns and especially WHY they are holding them.
As far as I can tell, the vast majority of the reasons to hold a gun are only there because we are allowed to hold a gun and simply don't trust the others who have been granted this liberty... so what we have is a religion founded upon fear and distrust... a very typical psychological religious disorder, so to be honest... they are really shitty reasons at best, so I suppose shitty reasons will the the best we can do in a debate.
Again...
... can we have this topic moved to 'Fetisch of Religion'?
Meow!
GREG
In voting down the bill, that would paint with a VERY broad brush, that if someone is on a No Fly List that they should also be banned from purchasing or possessing a firearm would violate American citizens Constitutional right to do so.
Simply based upon the unconstitutional foundation in which the No Fly list was compiled. Tens of thousands of people are on the No Fly List but for the American citizen, they are promised due process and suspicion does not satisfy the governments right to infringe on your individual rights. There are many, MANY people that should never have been put on the No Fly List and that is a nightmare to try to challenge but to sweepingly take away a individuals Constitutional right would be illegal.
Of course you are correct about many people owning guns and not being nuts. Most people who own guns just have them sitting in their closet, where they will never use them and where if they tried to use they would likely shoot their foot or their uncle Fred getting a midnight snack (that happens with frightful regularity but it isn't some looming threat). Some people own guns to hunt (though very few). I owned guns in my salad days, not knowing any better. I don't really have strong feelings about guns. They're not very interesting or useful. I have strong feelings about the danger of gun culture, which is undeniable.
So, the issue is should the rights of people to casually own guns trump the danger guns pose for society by empowering the weirdo cadre of gun fetishist who seem to have a propensity of going out engaging in mass killings.
If your position is yes, we profoundly disagree.
Looks like America is winning again! Thanks NRA for keeping the US exceptional!
Oh, yeah, Ryan has a cool head and uses soothing conservative rhetoric in facing crises.
Jeez, once you believe in gun culture, you can believe ANYTHING!
By the way, conservative Republicans called for and got the No Fly list, but don't let facts get in the way of your narrative.
Interestingly the US and Belgium, being the only countries with permissive gun laws are bang in the middle when it comes to both Rampage Shooting Incidents and Fatalities per capita.
I can't imagine what you think it is that the US is winning, but this data seems to do nothing to support your contentions.
This is poor analysis. You have to compare big countries with big countries. Big samples are very different from small samples when it comes to regularities and prediction. Small numbers are subject to being easily skewed by irrelevant or unpredictable events. This is Statistics 101.
Compare the US with China, Russia, Germany, Britain, France - we're winning the gun massacre competition hands down. Thanks NRA and thank the NRA's mathematically illiterate defenders.
I don't disagree with you entirely. I think at the very least the US needs to start making it more difficult for people to own them; e.g., permit courses, long hold periods, psychological tests, etc.. Unfortunately the NRA fights every little battle as if it's the whole war, which effectively stalls most reasonable gun legislation. In a way I suppose it is the whole war since it's incremental changes that are going to eventually change the culture.
I do sympathize with people who use a gun(s) for home protection. Especially those who live in less urbanized areas where wait times for police would be unreasonably high. I personally have a handgun in my home that I would be glad to have if my front door was kicked by the Manson family or would-be burglars at 4 in the morning.
Is that likely to happen? Burglars, maybe; Manson family, extremely unlikely. It doesn't take much perceived risk for people to want to hedge their bets though.
From the top down...
"...urgently needs"? :s
Don't they already have that in FOX News (aka the world's largest terrorist network :-$ )?
Meow!
GREG
Most Americans do not live in high-death-rate ZIP codes because most of us are not impoverished black people living in zones of extremity (i.e., the ghetto) or old fashioned southerners or wild west gunslingers. Most Americans are not engaged in high-risk occupations such as illicit drug sales or gang management. Most American are not hanging around in any of the various ghettos.
For the most part, we don't have a problem with guns! Exclude the ghettos, exclude suicides, exclude accidents, and it's not a terrible problem. The exclusions reveal the real problem: It isn't guns.
It's a dysfunctional economy and culture manufacturing death in the ghetto. It's a dysfunctional society driving suicides. Too many guns in the hands of amateurs and children leads to accidents.
The NRA has nothing useful to contribute to America's real problems. It's a fetish of conservatism. Liberals aren't doing much for America's problems either. I love liberals more, but to be honest, they're not really doing much for us either.
Just to be clear, I'm not blaming blacks. They are as much victim as perpetrator when it comes to violence. Nobody in the ghetto elected to be there. Social Dysfunction built the ghetto and social dysfunction governs the ghetto. That goes for Europe too. The various populations living in the outer arrondissements of Paris weren't hoping to end up in a dead end. The French didn't intend those arrondissements to be dead ends either, but such are the failures of policy.
Here John Fogerty makes the eternal much belovéd proposal (2007 - Revival)
I wish there was such epi data, but alas...
A good book relevant to the topic is Ghettoside: A True Story of Murder in America by Jill Leovy. Leovy spent several years on the LA TIMES LAPD beat. The book analyzes the high rate of homicide in South Central LA. One of her conclusions is that the homicide rate is so high is that murders there are nowhere close to adequately investigated and prosecuted. Consequently, a would-be murderer (say, a gang member who needs to "take care of business") can be fairly certain of getting away with murder. Something like 1/2 to 2/3 of murders are never 'cleared'. Far too few detectives are assigned to the area, and the population is notoriously uncooperative with the police, while at the same time urgently needing their services.
She makes some of the same observations as Stephen Pinker about the kind of cultural condition (anywhere in the world) which produces the high volume of violence. Marginalization, a regime of DIY justice, statelessness, powerlessness, and so on.
John, you might be right if the populations compared were very similar. I just saw a report that tried to compare Honduras to Switzerland in terms of gun ownership versus fatalities. See rebuttal here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/hondswitz.asp
Too late, photographer. They already started one.
http://www.guntalk.tv/site88.php
No, it's not. But I won't get in your way of using bad statistical analysis. It's something of a gun nut tradition.
It's like comparing the Greek economy to the US economy, another rightwing trope
He is probably one of the craziest and most divisive people in this country's leadership at the moment. It's no wonder he thinks more guns are the answer. He's appealing to people's fears, especially their xenophobia.
Quoting Landru Guide Us
I'm not so sure it's as much a right wing trope as it is an error all people tend to make with statistics.
Like I say, I don't think guns are very interesting or useful tools (except for committing mass murder and occasional hunting). Young adult males get all thrilled about them, and then most of them grow up and move on. Guns are noisy and expensive.
So it isn't guns per se, but gun culture that is problematic.
But I'm afraid we can never extirpate gun culture without banning guns. Guns are fetish objects for the weak-minded, who see them as the only way to grasp male power that they can't get by any other means. So I'm for banning them. Gun bans really do put an end to gun massacres.
As to home protection, unless someone trains constantly and is always at the ready, an armed intruder is going to shoot you dead before you even have time to load. And if it's in the middle of night, the likelihood that a person will have the presence of mind to get out of bed, get his gun, load it, and take down an intruder - in the dark - is somewhat fanciful. It happens but more often the guy shoots uncle Fred getting a midnight snack.
In any case, let me suggest that if people truly feel so insecure that they think their homes will be invaded by marauding criminals, they should be doing more to build a viable, just, safe democracy than arming themselves. Something is profoundly wrong with that society, and guns won't solve it. Though like you I'm sympathetic with people who just feel scared and want to protect themselves. But what does that say about the failure of our system?
The meme analyzed by Snopes is typical of the misuse of statistics and outright lies propagated by the NRA and similar organizations.
The fact that deceptive graphs, statistics, memes is the stock and trade of gun activism is telling as to how totally ideological it is, even as it constantly pretends to be factual and unemotional (mostly via projection as we've seen on this very thread)
I agree for the most part. I don't think they're always fetish objects. Guns are a great equalizer for those of diminutive stature. However, they become a great un-equalizer when someone grabs an AK-47 and starts shooting up a public space.
It becomes a trade off. Do we think that the protection of people in private or public settings is more necessary/more important?I think it should probably be the latter.
Keeping a sword or machete at one's bedside would probably be an effective and possibly safer alternative if one felt the need for home protection. Banning guns outright is likely an impossibility at the moment. That's why I support incremental changes to the law to make it more and more inconvenient to obtain them. This would at the very least deter spur of the moment homicidal maniacs.
People will of course say that if you ban guns, only criminals will have them. That would be true for a time. However, I think the long-term benefits would outweigh the risks.
Point taken, Cavacava, thanks. I certainly don't want to argue that there is a clear correlation between gun laws and shooting deaths or rampage killings; quite the reverse, there are so many other complexities involved, so many differences between different societies.
As I've said, there's no doubt most gun owners in the US just have them in their closet somewhere and don't give them a second thought. It's that small percentage who are fixated on firearms (and small is a relative term), that is a constant threat to our public space. Nor is it a coincidence that gun activism is associated with ugly political themes like white supremacy, xenophobia, violence against women, and so forth. So there is a bigger issue here in which guns are the focal point.
A baseball bat next to your bed is probably the most effective melee weapon for home protection in the world. And they only cost about 50 bucks.
I don't doubt that a ban is politically impossible in the current environment. But that is always true of any progress at any time when there is no leadership. Transformational political leaders, like FDR make the impossible possible. The first step for getting a ban is calling for it.
Ironically perhaps, the fact that only criminals would have guns is exactly the point, unbeknownst to the activists who use that slogan. Because it would be illegal to own a gun, we would know that the people who are caught with them are in fact criminals intending harm, and we could sentence them to prison without waiting for them to kill or injure somebody. When the bad guys own something that law-biding citizens don't, it's easier to identify the bad guys, especially since bad guys tend to get in other trouble with law enforcement for other reasons, allowing for searches, and hence arrest for gun possession.
That's why the ban on bombs is so effective - the only people who would possible possess a bomb are criminals planning to use it. So the slogan can be changed to if you criminalize explosives only criminals will have explosives. Yep. We did that and it works.
What could possibly go wrong with a brilliant plan like this?
All I can do is laugh at it all...
... if not, I'd probably just cry.
Funny thing is when I went to high school back in the late 70's early 80's guys who drove to school in their pickup trucks all had gun racks in their trucks. Indeed there were guns on most all of those gun racks and also there when they were parked in the school parking lot.
We had issue, fights, cliques, outsiders and typical high school angst frustrations, yet no one ever considered using a gun to resolve a problem. Never ever...
What changed?
Granted these guns were all for hunting and were not AK 47's or 'gangsta hardware', but they were guns nonetheless.
What changed in the people?
Anyway...
... back to laughing:
... let's promote spoon control to fight fat!
speaking of fat people...
I like the idea of making fat kids run until their gym shorts fit them. They won't have time to shoot each other or get indoctrinated via some sort of internet idealist bullshit con-artists claiming some sort of religious revolution. This fixes 3 problems all at once! :D
Meow!
GREG
It is a 'Homeopathy Solution' to the problem:
Unlike a vaccination that introduces a diminished (micro) form of the virus itself into the system as to evoke the immune system to better fight off the virus, it is the (confused) notion that what causes similar symptoms of the virus can cure those symptoms of the virus, but completely ignores the root cause of the virus.
The only thing that works in the Homeopathy is that it is a treatment of the patient rather than a treatment of the disease. It is a personal form of treatment; thus the placebo effect of feeling that one is becoming better is simply the result of the feeling that one is being helped.
I don't intend this to be a 'strawman', but rather a direct one to one illustration of this argument, just in medicine rather than in public safety.
The concept used by this sort of argument is one of the (mis)conception of if we introduce more of the symptoms (guns) into a society with the problem of gun violence that the introduction of more guns will cure the symptom of more guns being used for gun violence, yet completely ignores of the actual issue of gun violence in it's root cause; that being the irresponsibility of people.
Is the cure for irresponsibility to introduce even more potentially dangerous responsibility for the irresponsible?
I much prefer the vaccination model of allowing the trained and trusted professionals the duty of doing the jobs they have been trained for and not having a bunch of untrained, trigger happy fearful people taking the law into their own hands...
... then again, the professionals have not been all that professional as of late, but here's a better question... why?
Do they have the ability to do the job they are there to do or have there been so many restrictions placed upon their ability to do their jobs by those who they themselves have never one been trained or had to do those jobs?
SPIN SPIN SPIN...
How many times do we get to hear about these professionals getting it correct in the day and age of 'trial by media'?
(reminds me... I leave for the United States of Whatever in a just 5 days. I love the commercials. If I didn't know better, I'd say the USA is simply made of fat type-2 diabetic balding men who cannot get an erection who are looking for the best means to make a quick buck in a 100% risk free investment.)
I need a (sequitur) non-sequitur song about now:
... back to the rant:
Kind of reminds me of education, where parent who have a couple of kids somehow think they are far better to understand how to educate young people than teachers who have had years of education and preparation to do the specific task, but by virtue of parents having functions secondary sexual organs and the ability to press out a kid or two... well that ability to produce such a 'miracle' (a very common thing and honestly a very piss poor miracle as far as miracles go) they know it all much much better than the professionals... not realizing that their attachment in terms of an empirical study would be considered a bias.
Sorry...
... go 'off-topic'. Well... not really, but for the sake of the debate, let's say it was off topic.;)
Homeopathy is to the gun lobby argument, as conventional medicine is to gun control argument.
more humor:
Meow!
GREG
But, Landru, guns will never be banned in our Great Republic. And if guns are outlawed, only outlaws and Republicans will have guns.
God help me, but I love that song.
Since your last comments, many that I agree with, are actually constructive, I'll have to apologize for calling you a troll.
I understand how passionately you think about the issue and, well, after years on the same forum I should know you. To make it clear, I'm actually against the notion of people having guns for self defence. Yes, there is then something wrong with the society when one really would need a gun for one's own defence. And even if crime happens in the most safest places too, having a gun to defend yourself mainly just worsens things. And it really goes the other way around: if criminals (like a burglar) know people won't be armed, why on Earth then have guns that likely will make the sentence more harsh if caught? In an environment where guns are common it's the criminal that first needs a gun. And basically the loaded handgun in the dresser is a very dangerous firearm. It's in my view the reason guns in the US are more deadly than in other places, and the American gun culture has a very negative impact. Yes, I'm not in favour of a total ban, so there we do disagree. I think hunting, sport shooting or military training are understandable hobbies or reasons (with the last one).
Quoting Landru Guide Us
This example actually has more to it in my opinion. Because there is a profession that does handle explosives, who work on construction sites etc. Hence there is the know-how and the ability to make powerfull bombs in the society. Yet this is heavily regulated, and it hasn't been a problem. Here also a lot of reservists that are trained engineers basically know how to assemble a bomb or an "improvised explosive device". Yet here the knowledge is restricted and reservist's backgrounds are checked if they come for example to a voluntary course where explosives are handled... and usually are hand picked reservists. Everybody understands that the knowledge in the wrong hands would be devastating. What is the problem is when the information about making bombs is made public (by referring to free speech) and if the materials are obtainable (parts other than the fertilizer), then there is a problem.
I don't see (R) or (D) when it comes to an infringement on the rights of an American citizen.
It seems to me that he is of the old school here in the West, where it is believed that an armed society, is a polite society, Just sayin...;)
There is a surge out here in Arizona as I am sure is happening in other states, for weapons used for self protection and classes on the safety in using those firearms have tripled. That tells me two things, one people feel personally threatened by the unknown risk of 'the bad guy' and the lack of trust in our leader as with the swipe of a pen he can control what guns are legal and the ammo necessary for the firearm.
"Local gun dealers are trying to cope with a massive increase in demand for guns, ammunition, accessories and firearms training classes. They say there are two reasons for the surge: a spate of recent terrorist attacks and the president's subsequent speech, during which he made renewed calls for more gun control."
That is a quote from http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20151210/article/151219971?tc=ar
There is call once again for firearms to be allowed in class rooms and how to handle that.
http://azdailysun.com/news/national/university-of-texas-could-allow-concealed-handguns-in-class/article_269557d8-0978-5cae-977c-4f7b4e59c4e8.html
First point: As Erik Fromm observers in his book, The Sane Society, crazy societies invert the definition of sanity. What would be crazy in a sane society becomes sane in a crazy society. Surely allowing concealed guns in classrooms, the library, cafeteria, and the campus chapel for "protection" fulfills the diagnosis of a very, very crazy society.
Second point: In her book, Ghettoside: A True Story of Murder in America, Jill Leovy quotes a very successful homicide detective in south-central LA to the effect that "the reason the rate of black on black murder is so high is that the police are not doing their job." The same probably applies to Chicago, which is having a festival of blood lately.
Third point: In a civilized society, the state has a monopoly on violence. Why? Because one of the appointed tasks of the state is to protect citizens from enemies within and without. So, "enemies without" is not our concern in this thread; enemies within is. (This doesn't infringe on the Amendment II right to own a gun for hunting or to defend one's humble abode from thieves or worse.)
I feel that the state does a reasonably good job of defending it's citizens from violent attack in places where the citizenry is mostly inclined to behave reasonably civilly. Large swaths of of the civilized world, including large parts of the United States, conform to this pattern. Civilized, sane people behave in a civilized, sane way. If the citizenry is inclined to behave uncivilly, and suffers mass paranoid delusions, manifested in such activities as do-it-yourself-justice, do-it-yourself-peacekeeping, do-it-yourself-border control, grenade launchers in the kitchen, do-it-yourself-wild west mayhem, do-it-with-a-bullet-conflict resolution, and so on, then the task of protecting citizens is more difficult, but not impossible. More guns means more difficulty protecting citizens.
If one happens to live in a crazy society, like the land of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, one would do well to acknowledge the insanity of one's Mea Culpa County.
Arpaio has been accused of
abuse of power
misuse of funds
failure to investigate sex crimes
improper clearance of cases
unlawful enforcement of immigration laws
election law violations
and others.
Sheriff Arpaio has been:
found guilty of racial profiling in federal court
has a court appointed monitor to oversee his office's operations
has jails twice ruled unconstitutional
The U.S. Department of Justice concluded that Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history and filed suit against him for unlawful discriminatory police conduct.[
As of September 2015, cases involving Arpaio or his office have cost Maricopa County taxpayers $142 million in legal expenses, settlements and court awards.
Starting in 2005, Arpaio took an outspoken stance against illegal immigration, and became a flashpoint for opposition to Arizona's SB1070 anti-illegal immigrant law, which was largely struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Arpaio is also known for his investigation of U.S. President Barack Obama's birth certificate, and his continuing claim that it is forged.
No wonder his immigrant mother died giving birth to him.
As I think you know, guns must be taken very seriously. Encouraging people to buy guns and form a posse isn't a responsible position to take regarding deadly weapons.
That's a mistake. That's why so many Republicans get elected and infringe on our rights.
What could possibly go wrong?
I'm using the term loosely: there are many ways to restrict guns that don't involve preventing hunters and sports shooters from practicing their hobbies.
For instance, I believe several Australian states require guns for such uses be locked up after use at a club or some other third-party facility set up for that purpose. Obviously this prevents mentally deranged people from stockpiling weapons for mass murder. So this is not an insuperable problem.
Because some guys in Arizona are going to protect our democracy like they did during segregation when they rose up against Bull Conner and the unconstitutional segregationist governments of the Southern states and confronted them with firearms to protect the rights of black people.
Wait, they didn't! They supported the authorities and called the civil rights champions communists. Oh for fun.
Anybody who thinks NRA types are going to protect the Constitution are seriously deluded. The only provision of the Constitution they want is the 2nd Amendment. The rest, they stand against.
Here you have to show the police that you properly store your firearms in a safe or a strongbox. Firearms cannot ever be loaded while stored (a totally rational thing), hence those firearms in the safe, possibly in pieces with the ammo somewhere else, simply cannot be a "defence" if a burglar comes into your house. And they aren't meant for that. And those semi-automatic guns that reservist associations use for voluntary military training here are kept usually in Army garrisons, which ought to be safe places to storage firearms.
That mentally deranged people don't get their hands on legal guns can be basically done with a rigorous selection process. Yes, somebody might be treated unfairly, but usually these are very rare cases. If somebody wants to start hunting or sport shooting, it isn't an overwhelming bureaucracy to get over. What truly effects the statistics is that it isn't easy to just buy a gun if you are contemplating suicide.
And those safes have a reason to exist. The real threat is simply that criminals break in for the firearms, once they know someone or someplace has expensive firearms. Hence for example those active reservists I know that own semi-automatic rifles or sniper rifles themselves do typically not want any pictures of them with their rifles as in a country where the circles are small as here, some criminal could identify just who owns the arms and obtain the address of the person.
When the laws and requirements actually take into account the actual use of these kinds of firearms, then it is something that the gun owners can live with ...assuming they aren't Americans who start their opposition of gun control from an ideological point of view.
There are many ways really to get the laws work. But then you need an environment where everybody understands that it is natural that firearms ownership and use has restrictions. In America, the real starting problem is the discoure and culture itself. It really is a philosophical question just where the fear that Americans have about terrorism, crime and whatever comes from that makes them to buy guns. And just how this "Second Amendment" discourse came to be what it is now, this kind of "example" of the "freedoms" Americans have.
Fortunately none of the above accusations come as a surprise to me as I have seen evidence, personally witnessed, Joe's abuse of power in 'getting back' at anyone who stands up to show resistance to his unlawful attacks. It bothers me greatly when I see people intimidated, people like ME, who are unwilling to stand up for the person in his crosshairs, for fear of retaliation by the Sheriff.
No one who witnessed a neighbor's civil rights being violated was able (made the choice) to speak out about what had happened, the way in which it happened and how it could have been any one of us he wanted revenge on. What was really intimidating, in fact mind blowing, was that the person who's civil rights were violated, was one of his own. He brought down the force of the law on a woman who had served as an officer, on his force for 30 yrs and had retired on a ranch up the way.
No trust in the man or the department he runs. Period. He runs the most corrupt department in the country. No, really. What he has done to the Latino population in Arizona is embarrassing as well as dysfunctional as they come. His M*A*S*H* unit for animals takes in millions in donations for the care of confiscated animals, yet there is no account for how much money has been donated and where that money has been spent. No accountability for the money gained in the sale of those animals if they are not returned to the citizens. He is the definition of hustle.
I would say that he lines his pockets with the lives of those he exploits but I will let Federal Justice Murray Snow make the final decision on Joe's lawbreaking ways finally being exposed and there is a chance that a great many Phoenicians will feel validated and if not? Go figure, we ARE talking about Joe, ya know?
Please, stop these un-backed-up, irrelevant and ad-homing generalisations.
An ever so slight problem may arise though, if the criminals happen to possess smuggled guns, which would leave the poor police fending them off with tasers.
Perhaps if there was evidence that the more armed a society is the more polite it becomes?
The law of supply and demand works for guns too.
Grenades are outlawed for all but the military and not only outlaws have grenades.
Hmm, that point works against the pro-ban side too I see
are there stun weapons that stun for a long time (e.g days) until an antidote?
The effectiveness of this depends on how long police/criminal tension usually lasts (in all democratic countries please, don't assume everywhere is the states)
Quoting hunterkf5732
I was going to mention what Michael said about a dedicated armed response unit. But my other point was that arming cops with tasers is also not without its problems. Just google "tasered to death by cops".
And that's just the cops...
Yeah, at least a cop won't normally shoot you for resisting. Tasering is just too easy and ends up being overused.
Quoting Sapientia
I don't think this would work in the US unless gun ownership was reduced drastically (which, with the 2nd amendment, isn't going to happen). The country is swimming in arms and nobody is going to want to be a cop if they think they're going to be a sitting duck out there.
- Dr No ('No Mr Bond, I expect you to die')
- Don Vito Corleone, courteously accepting the petitions of wedding guests to have their enemies harmed or sent to sleep with the fishes.
- Hannibal Lecter, and his Olde Worlde courtesy to Jodie Foster's character in Silence of the Lambs
- The courtesy that surrounded the verbal aspect of aristocratic duels to the death in the 15th-19th centuries.
How do we choose between a decrease in manners (assuming for the sake of argument the saying is true) and an increase in schoolyard killings? It's a tough one.
Oh, no wait. My mistake. It isn't.
And then there is that idea of them as a symbol of individual freedom. And it should be admitted that the gun policies are indeed quite libertarian: that anybody can go to gun store and buy a gun without a long and cumbersome process where an official in the end decides if you are able to have a gun or not, or which kind of you gun you can have and how many.
Also, that an armed society is a polite society (assuming) is not that an unarmed society is an impolite society. Don't deny the antecedent!
This is a really stupid assumption. For one, we're technically already in an armed society and clearly it is not a polite one. Secondly, they're not even correlated. Thirdly, if the people aren't polite then having weaponry will simply make things more devastating. It implies a more easy way of execution by people who aren't polite.
'You think that because you have a gun I fear you? Yeah right, check this one out'. You see the point?
Let's not forget that if weapons are illegal it's fair to shoot whoever is carring a gun on sight. It makes targetting the bad guys a hell of a lot easier.
So who is going to shoot them if no one else is carrying a gun? And please don't answer the cops, because everyone knows there are hundreds of illegal guns for each cop.
And how does that prevent the police from targeting people wielding these guns?
It does not stop them at all, it just makes them ineffectual.
You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed, that is why the tape they use says "crime scene" instead of "crime prevention scene".
You seem to be hinting at some sort of ratio being low. What ratio do you have in mind? There is no obvious ratio that makes sense, given the above sentence.
Keeping it in context helps.
Let's not forget that if weapons are illegal it's fair to shoot whoever is carring a gun on sight. It makes targetting the bad guys a hell of a lot easier. — Emmanuele
Quoting Sir2u
To which Echarmion replied
Quoting Echarmion
And then
Quoting Sir2u
To answer your question, even if guns were made illegal that does not mean that they would just disappear. There are millions of illegal guns that the cops are not going to find until they are used in a crime. Just shooting anyone with a gun would not work because there are not enough people to do the job. Each cop would have to find and shoot several hundred bad guys. Not going to happen.
To what ratio were you referring with your use of 'rarely'?
I would instead say that a dangerous society is a cautious society (and an armed society is a dangerous society).
The samurai of Feudal Japan were well armed, and you could say that their society was "polite" (downright honorable in fact), but that doesn't mean it was a safe or just society.
In other words, arms just raise the stakes.
I think the most relevant example is the case of nuclear weapons. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki no nation has used a nuclear bomb against any other nation. We avoided a hot war with the Soviet Union because both sides were too cautious in the face of the danger. So in that specific case, yes, armed society is more polite society, but it's a bit foolish to use this as a rule-proving-case. The M.A.D doctrine has worked out so far, but if it should fail at any point in the future its strategic utility will seem useless in hindsight.
And the M.A.D doctrine doesn't work unless everyone has the same retaliatory capability. We can envision a world where nobody can transgress upon others because of equal power distribution, but that's not the world we live in. Even if weapons were all evenly distributed, if everyone has access to extremely powerful weapons then society will still be too unstable (imagine everyone having their own nuke).
So, to increase politeness by modifying weapons access, we could either have a gun under every pillow and a tank in every garage (not so stable in the long run), or we could reduce the disparity by reducing the amount of guns out in the wild. If people have a harder time accessing guns, more powerful guns, and bullets, then victims will less frequently be drastically outmatched by the weapons of their transgressors.
They need to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities using appropriate force. It's unreasonable to jump straight into assuming that they need to be shot. Jesus Christ. Not only is that an unreasonable assumption, it's a harmful assumption.
That kind of answer would surely fail a police exam. Or if not, say, in somewhere insane like Texas, then it should do.
Indeed, that was a classic case of red herring / missing the point.
I think you should have addressed you reply to Emmanuele as he is the one that said it would be easier to shoot whoever was carrying a gun.
And in case you did not notice, I have not agreed with him on the idea.
As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.
Is there a point to discussing when there's data that point to the truth?
Let me ask you a couple of simple question, how many people get arrested for carrying a gun before they either try to use it or actually do use it in a crime? Do police where you live actually stop people and search them for weapons without a valid reason?
Rarely means not often, seldom, infrequently, it is rarely used in any other sense so I see no reason to be providing a definition of it.
Quoting Sir2u
If you are having any trouble understanding the above sentence I don't know how to help you.
The ratio you keep on about I think is maybe something that I did not hint at but is implicit in what I said, lots of guns and very few cops. But I am sure that I had already said that.
If you are still having trouble, maybe S will get his magic dictionary out of the shit house so you can use it.
That is well known and has been repeated ad vomitus throughout the thread. I don't think that anyone here disagrees with that. But the problem is what to do about it. No one has any ideas about how to solve the problem when there are so many guns and people involved.
It is easy to say "Bring in tougher gun laws" but as I have said since the beginning writing laws and enforcing them are two different things.
I really don't see a problem with finding out what to do. The data is clear that strict gun laws and quality of life/politeness go hand in hand. There's pretty much grad school psychology to understand the mechanics of what guns do in people's hands, especially if a societies culture is "keep enemies out of my parameter or else...".
You're right in that it's harder to enforce the laws, but that's dependent on how the fundamental mentality of the people is. The solution will be, in places like the US, to either force people to follow the rules, or accept that the risk of mass shootings, school shootings, high violent crime and individual isolation out of fear of strangers is the norm. You either enforce laws or you don't, it depends on what the people want in a democracy.
Unfortunately, common people don't have the tools to understand this on their own, but you can still not force laws beyond the democratic process. So the only thing that I can see is positive is to educate, to provide the information about this to the people so that they, after a while, stop defending their personal preferences in order to increase the quality of life within their nation. Only at the right time can politicians enforce more strict gun laws without enraging half the country.
Please feel free to make a viable suggestion. I am sure that the American society will thank you for it because they have not been able to come up with an acceptable idea.
Quoting Christoffer
How do you force that many people to give up their guns? Even after all of the mass shootings and bad stuff that has happened the Americans continue to vote to be allowed to keep their guns.
Quoting Christoffer
Don't put the common people down, a lot of us do understand the information. That is why they still refuse to vote for banning guns.
I stated a long time ago that one way to solve the problem is through education, changing the mentality of the people might change the feelings towards guns. But how long will this take and how successful will the education system be against family and street influences? And the biggest part of the gun problem is not the normal everyday guy in the street, it is the thugs, How do you educate them
Quoting Christoffer
How long do you estimate until that happens?
I think I gave you the most realistic answer. Educate and turn people in a democracy towards wanting strict gun laws. You can't do much else. One thing to start with would be to force news and media to be objective, so that bought private companies won't spread misinformation that's supportive of a gun lobby agenda.
Quoting Sir2u
Common people do not discuss these issues on a philosophy forum or try to figure out the truth about the world and existence. They want to drink Starbucks coffee and enjoy some evening entertainment or sport on TV. I'm not criticizing this (although I think people should care a bit more about truth), I'm only stating the facts of how the world is. Just see how many get excited at a party if you start talking philosophy. This is not what most common people have an interest in. Which also means that they don't have the tools to understand the issues and are easily persuaded by lobbyist and smart political rhetoric.
It's actually us, philosophers and people who've been putting a lot of effort and thought into the issues of this world, who will be the ones educating other people on these issues. Why do you think that philosophers have been gaining popularity as a hired consultant in many workplaces?
Quoting Sir2u
That's a bit of a naive question. It's time when it's time when people want it. Just look at how people have started waking up to the facts because of all the rapports of mass shootings. Or it can go in the other direction. For US, I think the problem is fundamental in US history and culture, so I don't think it's gonna happen anywhere but the most progressive states.
It starts with the people. If you want a solution, figure out how you can convince one single gun owner to give up their guns for the greater good. If you can't convince a single one, you won't be able to push a whole nation.
You must have a very wide social circle to be able to make this claim. I know lots of people that probably do not even know of the existence of this and other similar sites, and they have opinions and discuss this topic along with other social problems. Why would anyone need to figure out the truth about the world and existence to be able to discuss gun control? Why do you think that no one ever does it while drinking coffee? And the funny thing is that I doubt that you have figured out the truth about the world and existence but here you are talking about gun control. Without providing a solution.
Quoting Christoffer
Is gun control a philosophical topic? That sounds really weird to me. I thought it was a social problem that we were discussing possible solutions to. Exactly how does it qualify as a philosophical topic?
If I was at a party and some dork started talking about Plato I would probably want to shoot him, not because of the topic but because of the setting. Just because people do not want to talk about philosophy at a party in no way proves that they don't have the tools to understand the issues. Which are the ever so special tools that you say you have just because you come to visit a philosophy forum?
Quoting Christoffer
Who is this "us"? I don't and I am reasonably sure that the majority of posters here do not consider themselves to be philosophers. I spend most of my time trying to sort out my own problems and have spent a minimum of time and effort on the issues of the world. What have you done to solve the problems of hunger in Africa, child labor in Indonesia or slave traders in Europe?
Quoting Christoffer
Before you can teach, you have to know. Which is the top of the list for jobs available for people with a philosophy degree. I have not been able to find any information about how many philosophers are actually hired as consultants but there does not seem to be much of a need for philosophy graduates in that area.
If you can please post a link to the information about that I would be thankful.
https://www.prospects.ac.uk/careers-advice/what-can-i-do-with-my-degree/philosophy
https://www.lovemoney.com/news/3981/the-best-and-worstpaying-university-degrees
Quoting Christoffer
How can a question be naive? The person asking it maybe, although not in this case, but the question cannot be naive.
Quoting Christoffer
So basically you, a self proclaimed philosopher, has no solution to the problem that has not already been discussed on this thread. All of the tools you say you have are just as useless as the ones the coffee drinking common people have.
But there is probably one thing that the common people have that you don't, a better understanding of how things affect them. Sitting high on a mountain looking at you belly button might make you a better philosopher, but until you get down in the streets you will not understand the problems you are trying to solve.
They don't need to. Where I live gun ownership is very rare and the gun crime rate is very low - partly because we have strong gun control laws, that have overwhelming public support.
Quoting Sir2u I know what 'rarely' means, and you know that I know it and that that has nothing to do with what I asked you.
You implied that some ratio is low and that that somehow helps your argument against gun control but, when we take your sentence and try to find a clear, precise proposition in it, we end up with nonsense. I suspect you've already realised this, which is why you keep on dodging the question.
Here's the nonsensical sentence again:
Quoting Sir2u
Why not just admit you wrote something that made no sense? It's no big deal. We all do it quite frequently, especially me. The admission wouldn't hamper your ability to continue arguing against gun control, should you wish to do so.
I included his quote above yours. I addressed it to both of you, since he said it and you humoured him without addressing the elephant in the room.
No, you just don't like it when I correctly identify an error in one of your replies, although I was basically beaten to the punch by andrewk when he said that you didn't answer the question. I just narrowed it down to two related informal fallacies and named them. Either you deliberately changed the subject, i.e. a red herring, or you make an irrelevant point without realising it, i.e. missing the point.
Bring in tougher gun laws which can be enforced, and enforce them.
No, it's about being observant to the behavior and opinions of common people around you. If you want to know more about how things are being discussed outside of your own small group of friends and relatives you need to act like an anthropologist and really look and listen to how people are.
Quoting Sir2u
I already told you the realistic route of action. Stop acting naive.
Quoting Sir2u
Philosophy of ethics and justice.
Quoting Sir2u
Have you ever met anyone outside of philosophy who can do a proper dialectic? Most discussions about sensitive topics always end up in brawls with each side always saying their opinion and no one reaching a higher level of understanding. It's exactly because of the lack of dialectic tools. But you don't seem to know much about these things?
Quoting Sir2u
No, you are certainly not a philosopher, that's for sure. But you can study philosophy on your own in order to handle problems in a better way. Like, not acting as you do with the last sentence of that paragraph. Why do you think philosophers are now being hired, at a higher rate, to companies and businesses who need to make choices that affect people? Entertain the thought and the causality from that.
Quoting Sir2u
It might be more evident in my country, but here are some hints
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/mark-cuban-philosophy-degree-will-be-worth-more-than-computer-science.html
https://bigthink.com/experts-corner/why-future-business-leaders-need-philosophy
Philosophy is more about how you think about problems, not direct solutions to problems. What's the point of hiring someone who has the answers to current problems if they cannot solve new ones further down the road?
Quoting Sir2u
Of course a question can be naive, like asking what someone is doing with his philosophy to solve an entire continent of poverty. How is that not naive, blunt and fallacy-ridden?
Quoting Sir2u
I recommend that you study a bit more philosophy before you demand solutions in the way you do. You're acting like a child right now and it's probably not worth continuing this discussion when you seem incapable of being humble.
Quoting Sir2u
You know nothing about me, so who's actually sitting on a high horse, judging?
Lucky you, but there was probably never any guns to get rid of so the situation is nowhere near the same as we have been discussing. Gun laws and controls are preventative measures that prevent the problems from happening but are not always the solution to an existing problem like in the USA. Have you ever lived in a gun infested area? I work in the place that was named the murder capital of the world for several years.
Quoting andrewk
You asked about the ration and I explained several times that it is the number of cops to the number of guns that need to be collected or confiscated. I even stated instead of implying that there are to few cops to do the job. The cops are not removing the illegal guns from the streets until a crime is committed despite the fact there there are laws and regulations that permit them to do so. You do know that these laws exist I suppose. If that is too difficult to understand then I am at a loss about how to make it simpler.
Quoting andrewk
I think that you have been listening to S too much. The purpose of these type of forums is supposed to be educational, a place where you can express your ideas and read other peoples ideas. It is not about beating and bullying others into submission and trying to force them into admitting that they are wrong.
If you think my idea is incorrect them it is up to you to present your case and prove it.
So please show me why my statement that there are not enough cops to solve the gun problem nor enough public support to do so is wrong.
There is the challenge, either show me what is wrong or shut up.
Quoting andrewk
Priceless. Please show me where I have ever argued against gun control.
The closest that I have ever come to doing so is to say that the people of the USA believe that they have the right to carry guns. Learn to read.
And exactly what do you think the elephant was, maybe I did miss it. But I replied to the part I quoted and nothing else in his post, so I don't think that I was either humoring him nor missing anything.
He said it would hat it would be alright to shoot anyone with a gun and I asked who would do the shooting.
End of topic, nothing missed.
No, you were just hitching a ride on someone else's white horse. You saw someone pointing out a supposed error and you jumped on the band wagon. A common practice of yours.
If you and andrewk are incapable of understanding them I am sorry for you both.
Now, if you believe what you say then explain the fallacies you named as they apply to my post. I already know how you are going to respond, "LOOK IT UP YOURSELF". Because you have no idea how to do it..
Quoting S
Say what? Talking about missing the point, and here we have a good example. In every discussion you have said the same thing. Could you be specific in exactly what those laws would be? And how they would apply to all of the illegal weapons?
And I can probably guess your answer to this as well, "I am not a law maker". So what enforceable laws would you, as a thinking individual person, like to see put into the law books?
I have a very small, 5 people, group of friends. I have 2 other family members. And we do discuss world problems of every kind, even though I am the only one that participates in a philosophy forum. But I work with hundreds of people everyday. Most of them seem perfectly capable of talking about the problems of the world as well. So I still don't understand why you think that non-philosophy forum people do not have the tools necessary to think about such things.
Quoting Christoffer
I am beginning to believe that "naive" is your word of the week. And I don't see how your route is realistic.
Quoting Christoffer
This does not answer the question, I asked how gun control qualifies as a philosophical question, not which area of philosophy would possible put it into.
Quoting Christoffer
I have not asked anyone whether they can do a proper dialectic. But as you are making this statement about the non-philosophically inclined people's incapability, I am sure that you have asked everyone you have ever met in your anthropological wanderings and all of the parties you have ever attended. Because that is the only way to know such things that I am aware of.
Quoting Christoffer
Actually I doubt that most of the people here on the forum are philosophy students or have a degree in philosophy. I can think of several members whom I know of that do not.
While knowledge of the use of dialectic tools is useful to argue successfully, it is useless in the face of ignorance. If you know nothing about the topic, there is no use for these tools.
Seriously, do you think that the common people have not realized that there is a problem with guns? They know well enough that there is. It is not the lack of these tools that stops them from doing something about it, but the lack of methods that can be used. They vote for the people that they want to represent them and the ones that propose removing the guns lose. They protest in the streets and get arrested because, as you say it turns into a brawl.
You say that you have the use of these tools, what are you going to do to solve the problem?
Quoting Christoffer
This does not qualify as proof of the statement you made.
[quote="Christoffer]Why do you think that philosophers have been gaining popularity as a hired consultant in many workplaces?[/quote]
The articles say that some people think that philosophy graduates might have a better career that others, but it makes no mention of them gaining popularity as a hired.
Quoting Christoffer
I very much doubt that is what the companies think, if they hire someone as a consultant they want the problem solved not just thought about.
Quoting Christoffer
It would get things going again without which there would be no new problems down the line because there would be no company.
But it would make sense to hire someone that could do both problem solving and preventative work. Unfortunately, "preventative" in industry usually means foreseeing possible problem and trying to prevent them, which would be almost impossible without the technological know how. I don't think many philosophy graduates would be able to predict possible week points in any system that they have no knowledge of.
Quoting Christoffer
I have made no demands, I asked you how you would solve a problem and you have no answer.
Quoting Christoffer
Oh dear. Is it my fault that you have nothing to contribute to the solving of the problem? I am not the one that sets myself above the common people nor do I claim to be a philosophy. I am just a humble thinker with opinions based on what I see and what I know. It would seem to be that you are the one covering up your inabilities with pompousness.
Quoting Christoffer
I can say exactly the same thing about you. You do not know me or what I have studied, but you presume to make statements about what I should do to improve my understanding of truth and the world.
You erroneously equate "a solution" with a complete solution in full detail, ready and waiting to be implemented. People here have outlined the solution for you. Your expectations, as I've explained multiple times here, are unreasonable. We aren't all going to go off to gain the required expertise and then spend all the required time and dedication to produce some sort of Treatise On The Problem Of Firearms.
Oh man, that's priceless. :lol:
I don't recall him saying anything about this hat which you mention. But I do recall him saying something about shooting armed criminals, which seems to be jumping ahead without justification. You addressed what he said on his own terms, taking into account the whole shooting armed criminals thing, whereas I challenged it.
It makes sense to be specific when there's a need to be, and when there's a reasonable expectation for the specificity at the level you suggest. I doubt that you've fulfilled this criteria.
I would like to see those enforceable laws for which there is evidence of them working be put into the law books and enforced. Evidence of these laws working has been given in this discussion. That you might discount the evidence is not that it hasn't been given, nor is it that it's right to discount it.
I have never said that I have any expectations, I have simply asked for people to present their solutions.
So far all of the solutions have amounted to "create laws and enforce them". When I have pointed out that there are laws and the problems with enforcing them you and others like you get uppity. If you do not want to discuss this like a rational person, why the hell do you keep sticking your nose in.
Is it possibly that you keep posting simply because you want to add more posts to you status, that you tie in with your continuous use of multiple posts in a row instead of combining them in to one as would seem the logical thing to do.
Quoting S
It is not as good as yours though.
Naive - adjective
Marked by or showing unaffected simplicity and lack of guile or worldly experience
Inexperienced
Lacking information or instruction
Not initiated; deficient in relevant experience
Please tell me how any of those meaning can be applied to describe a question, which is an abstract. I have never met a question that has worldly experience or experience of any kind for that matter, so in that sense all questions would be naive. I have never read a question that lacks information or instruction. How would you initiate a question or show its deficiency in experience?
A person can be naive for asking a question, but even school kids know that this adjective cannot be applied to a question.
Quoting S
Congratulations. that is the first one you have found out of six. You must be getting desperate to make me look bad so that you can "win". When you have nothing worth while or relevant to say you always start picking on people's typo's, grammar and spelling.
Quoting S
In what way did I address him on his own terms? All I did was ask who was going to do the shooting, there was nothing there to challenge. If anything I was pointing out the folly of what he said.
Quoting S
Did you think about this before you wrote it?
If there are enforceable laws that have been proven to be effective then there would be no need to put them into the law books because they are already there. sounds like gobble de goop to me.
Quoting S
And it was pointed out that what works well in one place will not always work in another. The same applies to baking cakes, it is different at sea level that when you are on top of a mountain. That you cannot see these difference or cannot understand how they apply to the different situations is your problem. And it is not right to discount other peoples' way of thinking just because they do not agree with your narrow minded, ignorant, inexperienced way of thinking.
Keep on look for the easter eggs, I left several here for you're enjoyment.
Yes, I did. Did you think about [I]that[/I] before you typed and submitted it? Surely you must know a thing or two about the obstacles against legislating and enforcing laws for which there is good evidence that they're effective? In the USA, there's the Republican Party, the NRA, lobbyists, the rampant gun culture...
Quoting Sir2u
Yeah, I remember your line of argument, and replies have been given to that, too. Recently, for instance, by Christopher. In short, act to make the conditions right, then act to change the law or the ways in which it is enforced or both.
Quoting Sir2u
I don't spot them. Your a master at subtlety, you are.
If you want to drop your original rhetorical flourish about police not preventing crime and instead focus on an argument about there being too few police to enforce a government gun acquisition program, by all means do so. There are complex issues to discuss in that direction. But saying that that your claim about police attending crime scenes was making that point falls flat.
Quoting Sir2uI am sorry that you feel bullied. I am not aware of having written anything that was bullying, but if I have you need only point it out and I will delete it and apologise.
Quoting Sir2u No. Read about the Australian gun buy-back here. There is plenty of room for a discussion about the differences between the pre-1996 Australian situation and the current US situation, and the effect those differences have on the viability of applying the same strategy to the US, but suggesting there were no guns to be confiscated forms no part of that. Approximately 650,000 guns were collected and destroyed.
Let me re-state your mistake.
An enforceable law should be added to to the law books is basically what you said.
But if it is an enforceable law then it is already a law and therefore there is no need for it to be added to the law book again.
Quoting S
What has this got to do with anything? If it is already a law that is enforceable why would there be any problems anywhere, or with anyone.
Quoting S
Basically what I have been saying from the beginning, education first.
Ah, I see. So you were merely being pedantic, and your point was trivial, and you either misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted what I was saying.
I meant what would be a proposed enforceable law in the country for which I would want it added to the law books. It would already be an enforceable law elsewhere. That's where the evidence comes from.
Quoting Sir2u
The problem was more than that. Enforceable is not the same as enforced. I want the two together.
Quoting Sir2u
And who do you think is arguing against that, if anyone?
Oh dear, I really must be losing my mind. I am so sure that I had posted all of those things below.
Quoting Sir2u
Quoting Sir2u
Quoting Sir2u
Quoting Sir2u
The fact that other people obviously understood and pointed out what I said leaves me thinking that you do not understand English very well.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Do I really have to mention that these are ratios, when you are the one that pointed out that I seemed to be implying something like that. I took it for granted that you knew how to read.
Quoting andrewk
Nit picking.
Quoting andrewk
Maybe I hinted incorrectly or not at all, just your imagination, or maybe you understood incorrectly. Who knows. What is obvious is that the cops nearly always arrive after a crime has been committed because there are not enough to have them just standing around waiting for a crime to happen.
Quoting andrewk
My original statement stands until someone can prove it to be false. Which you certainly have no way of doing.
Be careful using "that that" in sentences, S gets upset and pulls out his dictionary and some webpages about it.
Quoting andrewk
I have already made a statement about my thoughts on gun crime prevention, but I would have to give some thought to the idea of cops not being able to enforce gun acquisition programs. Exactly what are these programs supposed to do.
Quoting andrewk
Oh, I don't feel bullied at all, I was just commenting on your style. It seems to be heading in the same direction as S. Comments like the one below tend to show the writer's inability to provide proper answers to the questions more than the inability of the one it is being written to.
Quoting andrewk
You have still not answered the question either, another habit of our friend S. Why am I wrong?
Quoting andrewk
"The 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA), passed in response tothe April 28, 1996 Port Arthur, Tasmania massacre of 35 people, banned semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns, bought back more than 650,000 of these weapons from existing owners, and tightened requirements for licensing, registration, and safe storage of firearms. The buyback is estimated to have reduced the number of guns in private hands by 20%, and, by some estimates, almost halved the number of gun-owning households."
Just over half a million guns BOUGHT back. It is estimated that there are more than 350 million guns in the USA.
Do you still think the comparison is valid?All of this has been proposed already. and no one has come up with an idea to put it into effect.
Who is going to authorize the purchase of these guns at a value that would make it worth while to turn it in? Count each one at about $10, that is a lot of tax payers money to be spent. And most of the owners of the guns spent much more buying the guns and are not going to be happy that their money is used for this instead of helping the already screwed up educational and health systems.
As to the effectiveness of this, even they are not sure whether it made any difference.
"This issue of Bulletins reviews the evidence on the effect of the NFA on firearm deaths. There have not been any studies examining the effect of the buyback on crime other than homicide. Some scientists believed that the buyback might reduce firearm crime, but most saw no reason to expect that it would significantly affect non-firearm crime.Most crimes in Australia before the NFA did not involve firearms, and few Australians owned handguns or carried them on their person, either before or after the buyback. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that after the buyback, the percentage of robberies where the assailant used a firearm did drop significantly. There was little change in “unlawful entry with intent,” one of the few types of crime where one might make a case for a possible deterrent effect of having a gun in the home."
https://americangunfacts.com/
Gun Ownership Vs Crime, an international perspective
I live in the #1 spot on the international side of the diagram. I own and sometimes carry a weapon, I have fired a couple of times as a deterrent and I am happy to be here writing today because of this.
No, I was not being pedantic, I leave stuff like that to you. And the point was not trivial, it is not my fault that you cannot express clearly what you want to say.
Quoting S
Neither of those, you wrote something that did not make sense and I pointed it out to you.Quoting S
OK, so it was your inability to make your ideas clear. You should try harder to write what you mean, I remember you telling me that so many times.
Quoting S
Ahh, now I understand. You want a hundred percent guaranteed answer. Could I ask how do you think it would happen in the good old USA.
Quoting S
As far as I can see no one is. But no one has given any ideas about how to go about doing it either.
Do you?
Quoting Sir2u
Didn't think so.
Quoting Sir2u
As far you can see, yes. Perhaps you can't see very far.
Did not think what? Please try not to write these cryptic one liners, Banno is the only one that can do that correctly.
Pfft! That old goat probably can't even button up his shirt correctly.
Still refusing to answer questions I see. But I guess it is because you don't have an answer. :roll:
Quoting Sir2u
yet the only one of the 'things below' that mentioned 'ratio' was the one that I had already said was the first time you did it, and none of them related to the disputed claim about attendance at crime scenes.
Quoting Sir2u
Quoting Sir2u
Quoting Sir2u
Could you just remind me exactly what accusations you were making about attempted bullying?
Quoting Sir2u
As you know, that's not how things work on a philosophy forum. The onus is on the person making a claim to justify it.
Quoting Sir2uIn the instance to which you are referring, my use of 'that that ' was a mistake. I was careless when typing that sentence. I either didn't notice that I had typed the word twice, or I did but mixed it up with a sentence a few lines earlier where the doubling was used intentionally and correctly.
It appears that it is actually not at all painful to admit that one is wrong sometimes.
You kept insisting that I had hinted at a ratio, so I highlighted all of the hints. It should be obvious if others managed to figure it out. As I asked, was it really necessary to mention the word ratio before a smart person like you figured it out.
Quoting andrewk
Where did I make any accusations, as I said I was only commenting on the purpose of the forum and your style.
Quoting andrewk
I have given any and all of the reasons why I think what I do, I think that I have justified the way I think adequately. But that is not what I am talking about, you keep insisting that I am wrong and claiming in a non bullying way that I am naive.
So it is up to you to provide the reasons why I am wrong.
As you say, if you make a statement the onus is on you to prove it. So go ahead and prove that anything that I have said is false. Or as you and S are fond of saying just admit that you cannot do it.
Quoting andrewk
Yes, I know. It happens all the time. But some people around here think that is reason enough to call you out and say that you need to go back to school and learn some grammar. I know because it has happened to me on several occasions. that is why I warned you to be careful.
Quoting andrewk
So explain to me why I am wrong and I will follow your example.
But whether we elect a few people to do the actual arm bearing, or whether each of us are made to bear them ourselves personally, which in my opinion, and that of many others, most others I should say, is tedious, risky, economically redundant, and a terrible burden, is apparently a matter of debate.
I personally have to go against the argument and say that an armed society is not any more polite than an unarmed one, and such business is best left to the state and mercenaries, while we citizens indulge in higher activities like art and philosophy.
I totally agree with you, to each their own and good luck with the choices you make.
But you forgot to add drinking and loving to the activities.
Maybe you're asking the wrong questions. Maybe you're just not recognising the answers.
Quoting Sir2u
Your answer:
Quoting S
Nope, I don't think I missed anything. Unless of course you actually intended to answer that meaningless, senseless and complete idiotic.
This looks like trolling, but perhaps you're just not being clear. With regard to firearms, the United Kingdom is not generally an armed society. Our citizens, criminals, and police are generally unarmed in that respect. And yet, since this has been the case, we've stuck around, and it is no coincidence that gun crime is exceptionally low here in comparison with other places, and there's no good reason to believe that we won't last very long as a result of these circumstances. That's balderdash.
If this makes us an abnormal society, then so be it. If only more were abnormal in this way, a lot of lives would be saved. Abnormal should become normal.
I wasn't sure you were being serious with that question. Did you genuinely not see what I did there? Or are you just yanking my chain because my sentence was incomplete, and you think that pointing things like that out to me is a good way to troll me?
You don't know what that means. He spelled out what he thinks and why he thinks that way clearly.
Quoting S
But the UK is the violent crime center of Europe, even beating the USA.
https://americangunfacts.com/
If these do not seem real, you can verify the data through the sources they provide at the bottom of the page.
Have I ever asked you a question that I did not expect you to take seriously?
Yes I saw what you did. You made a senseless comment that has no value just to add another post to your 7.7 list of crappy posts.
Quoting S
There is only one reason that I ever yank the chain, unfortunately that option is not available in the virtual world even though it is so desperately needed.
Here I ought to remind you of the not-so-long ago history of two world wars, Cold War, postcolonism wars, opium war, famine-ridden British raj in India, the systematic destruction of the African continent, the Middle East, and so on and so forth. How much does it cost the state to keep out all the refugees from wars and the poor?
You lock the main gate and leave the room doors open, rather than locking the room doors and leaving the main gate open. Because the real enemy (the poor) is outside and in much larger numbers.
Yeah I do. But there's an ongoing debate about whether it's a art or an science.
Anyways...
Quoting Sir2u
I suspected that your link would be dodgy. And guess what? It is. It contains a statistic that the much more credible fact checking website PolitiFact rates as false.
The figures may or may not be accurate. We don't know. But we do know that the sources are anything but impartial.
The two sources listed in the footnote of the 'we love guns!' site in the link are just news articles in the Daily Telegraph, a UK paper with links to the Tory party. Further, the articles report that the statistics were compiled by Tory MPs in order to help their attacks against the then-Labour government. The article claims the statistical sources from which the Tories compiled their figures were an EU statistical agency, but no reference is given to a specific source at that agency, or to any other source.
The articles also report that the Home Secretary of the time vigorously rejected the figures.
Finally, regardless of whether the figures are fair representations of the EU figures and those from other countries like USA (no source provided), or just made up for the sake of political point-scoring, are ten years old.
I am surprised at myself that I continue to be surprised that people believe controversial claims they read on heavily partisan websites, without bothering to follow the chain of references (if any) to see if they lead to anything other than just more partisan sources.
What has any of that got to do with firearms in peacetime? Now I definitely think you're a troll.
Wait. Are you Tom, Inis, sock puppets, etc? You are, aren't you?
I know right? I doubt that I would do that to begin with, but if I did, and then I got exposed, I think I'd be really embarrassed, and would quickly learn not to make the same mistake again.
Thank you for presenting this, did you read the last paragraph.
"Our ruling
The meme said "there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the U.K.," compared to "466 violent crimes per 100,000" in the United States. Our preliminary attempt to make an apples-to-apples comparison shows a much smaller difference in violent crime rates between the two countries, but criminologists say differences in how the statistics are collected make it impossible to produce a truly valid comparison. We rate the claim False."
It is still higher than the USA, although I have to admit that anyone that believed the data to be accurate and unbiased would have to be crazy.
But actually a lot of it does check out, if you remember the time I showed you the FBI data base and several other links to accurate data that were basically the same.
What is really interesting though is the way violent crimes is on the rise right now. It must be bloody awful with all of those mask scooter riders running around with knives killing people everyday. Is the a reason for this?
Just a couple of questions I would like to ask about the PolitiFact web site. How do you know that it is a truly unbiased opinion that they are giving? Most of the work is done by people on newspapers payrolls.
Why do you think they only deal with politicians? Don't doctors, engineers and people on the street also make ridiculous statements?
I don't expect answers, it was just a couple of things that came to mind.
As you say we do not know. But it begs the quest "Why on earth would the Tories be trying to convince people that England was more violent than the USA?". Any ideas?
Quoting andrewk
He would have been a bloody fool to do otherwise.
Quoting andrewk
And we all know how greatly things have improved since then don't we? From what I read on the BBC things are getting worse all the time. Maybe people there will start buying guns to protect themselves. It has been report that illegal attempts to import arms has risen, I wonder what the percentage of the actual imports being caught is.
The credibility of PolitiFact can be looked into online through other fact checking websites, like Media Bias / Fact Check, which rates it as least biased.
I've addressed your point about knife crime about a million times. Gun shot wounds are on average more deadly (which is both common sense and supported by statistics I linked to many, many pages back), so the risk is more severe, and the law reflects that, as do priorities in hospitals.
Now that is strange, I am beginning to believe in parallel universes. I clicked on the link in S's post
to where andrewk posted this and it is not there. :gasp:
Quoting S
I doubt that you would post anything similar to that as well, you don't have enough imagination to provoke thought in others. If I had posted a link to the FBI you would not have answered. And this way you provide the evidence that crime is higher in the UK so everyone has to believe it.
I doubt that you would be embarrassed either, it has happened to you before despite all of your mistakes and you have still not learned from them.
Quoting S
And who checks their reliability?
But you have just got to love them for the footnote below the ads.
"Ads do not necessarily reflect the views of MBFC"
Quoting S
Yes I know. Knife wounds take up hospital space and doctor and nurse's hours and cost a lot to fix as just like gun wounds. I don't think that there is much difference between a machete wound to the stomach and a bullet wound in the same place, and it seems the people die from both.
:roll:
Predictable and childish.
Quoting Sir2u
Your opinion as a layperson doesn't have the slightest impact, and you can't even stay on point, just like in your exchange with andrewk. I specifically brought up gun crime, and you changed the subject to violent crime, followed by your dodgy link. Then I made a point about averages, and you don't mirror that back in your reply, so it's unclear whether you're talking about averages or only specific cases, which in turn means it's unclear whether you're plain wrong or wrong by way of logical irrelevance. And to top it off, you finish with a complete irrelevancy about people dying from both, which is obvious and which no one denied.
As the article and my post make quite clear, they used it to attack the then-government (Labour) in an attempt to make them lose the upcoming election - which they did, but not because of that issue.
Quoting Sir2u
No I don't. I have no statistics and none have been produced in this thread that I have seen. So all I have to go on are impressions: I was in the UK a year ago and it seemed to me to be more peaceful and prosperous than it was when I was last there, in 2007.
No, unforeseen said that armed societies are normal. And that started another line of discussion.
You implied that the UK was a great place to live and that it would last forever even without guns. Or something along those lines anyway.
I said that the UK is the violent crime capital of Europe and even beats the US.
You said that was false.
I commented that it must be awful living in the UK with all of those knife crimes
Then you said that you had addressed those things before as if I had asked a question or made some sort of incredible statement about knife crime. I just made a comment about something that you can read about in the newspapers everyday, and they do appear to be happening more and more. And lots of those people that have been stabbed appear to have died. Unfortunately, or maybe I should say fortunately there are not many gun crimes in the UK to compare the survival rate to.
I think that I have to apologize here, I really did not make my self clear on that point. Yes, you stated that they were trying to win an election and they used that as a weapon for that purpose.
But what I was after in my question was why would they use something as awful as telling the world that England is a dangerous place to win.
Surely they must have seen that they would do damage to everyone, including themselves. Did they even think about what might happen if tourists began to avoid dangerous England? What about international trade and investment. That is one of the biggest issues where I live right now, no one wants to bring money here because of violent crime.
Firstly it's not true and secondly, even if it were, the last thing that should be done is advertise it to people smugglers.
All because they want to try to win a looming election by c;aiming to be 'tougher on illegal immigrants'.
:sad:
Because regular people don't generally understand the concept of a dialectic discussion, they see any discussion between two opinions as an argument without end since both sides just clash without understanding the other or the self. It's also a ground for meta-ignorance. This is why I numerous times doubt your insight into philosophy since you never demonstrate that philosophical process in your writing.
Quoting Sir2u
Because you demand absolute solutions to very very complex problems. That is almost a textbook answer of what naive is. The "solution" I described involved the very realistic idea of educating people into supporting strict gun laws through democracy. You either go by a totalitarian state-regulation to just ban guns, or you work with the people so that they understand the problems and understand why it's good for them as well. If you have any other solution beside enforcing change and planting seeds for change, feel free to express it, but if you want simple answers, that is the naive route.
Quoting Sir2u
Because it has to do with philosophical discussions around justice and ethics, two of the biggest topics in philosophy. Why is it not a philosophical question to have a discourse around that topic? Please elaborate on why it does not qualify.
Quoting Sir2u
Can you write any text without having an asshole tone to them? Without a dialectical approach, there are only opinions, often with a meta-ignorant problem underneath. People might have heard the word dialectic, but how many can have a dialectic discussion? How many discussions have you heard between people which ended in both sides improving their own ideas or come to the conclusion that the other was right? I mean, truly changing for both sides?
Quoting Sir2u
Of course, most don't have a degree in philosophy. But without any insight into philosophy, what is even the point of being on this forum? I mean, to read is good, but to participate in discussions without being humble about their own knowledge in philosophy and instead rage on with pure speculative opinions, fallacies and biases, is to a degree not even recommended by the forum guidelines. If there's no effort to even learn some basic philosophy, why even bother? Then Twitter is probably a better platform for such rants.
Quoting Sir2u
Dialectics leads to a better understanding of your own opinions and others. It's a tool to let people reach better conclusions and be less influenced by people with the power of persuasion.
You suggest methods to be used, what methods are there in your argument, which brings forth a change without restricting democracy and liberty of the people?
Quoting Sir2u
Quoting Sir2u
Quoting Sir2u
Quoting Sir2u
It's a cultural difference then since observations in my country are that companies and industries increasingly have pushed for philosophy training in leaders and philosophers consulting during problems, rather than just trying to figure things out themselves. It means they frame the problem the company is facing through the lens of philosophy in order to foreshadow the consequences of the solutions to the problems. They're also educating employees, especially in the tech industry and A.I.
Quoting Sir2u
That are not the problems I'm talking about. But for example, figuring out the ethics of gun laws require quite a lot of philosophy in order to give a nuanced perspective to politicians and the people. If a problem touches upon philosophical problems, why would those questions be left to those who work with systems to solve? It's like calling a plumber to fix the roof.
Quoting Sir2u
Because you don't have an answer, I don't, no one really has, which is my point. It's a philosophical dialectic with the aim of finding a solution. My suggestion was given and you demand absolutes instead. You are demanding something without any real interest in the discourse. If someone doesn't give an absolute solution to something you seem to interpret that as a disqualification of the specific participant on the topic. I gave you a possible solution, you have answered nothing on the validity of the causational consequences of that solution and instead demand an absolute solution. It's once again, naive and almost childish as a demand.
Quoting Sir2u
I do not set myself higher than common people, I stated a fact that common people don't have dialectic methods to discuss something in order to reach a higher understanding of their own opinions. That is a simple epistemic fact which would be ridiculous to counter without proposing that common people would automatically know it without studying it. It's almost a populistic idea and anti-intellectual, the kind of dismissal of knowledge that's been plaguing the world more and more the last ten years.
Quoting Sir2u
You are pretty far from being humble. You should really calm down and take a look at your own writing before judging others. The critique against you does not being until you behave in a certain way, the causality of this is pretty straight forward. You judge others all the time and you mock the knowledge they provide with inadequate reasoning and pure speculative opinions. The response you get probably reflect the writing you do more than all the other people and their knowledge.
Quoting Sir2u
You write about philosophical tools and methods of dialectic like you have no idea what you are talking about. So, I draw a conclusion based on how you actually write. And since your attitude is extremely impolite towards others that might have more knowledge in this area, I would say you solidified that notion. So, no you can't say the same thing to me because I actually try to answer, you are just defending your own ego with mocking and ridiculing other people.
So, either you demonstrate that you have an understanding of the things discussed and prove me wrong when I suggest you study more, or just stop with your tu quoque fallacies. You attitude at the moment is the evidence in itself of my statement.
What proof do you have that ordinary people, without a degree in philosophy, cannot understand the concept of a dialectic discussion. Through out history people have been doing this with absolutely no formal education. The way you talk it is as if these abilities are something that developed because of colleges. Lots of the greatest philosopher had little or no education at all. Thinking is something that can be and is developed by anyone that wants to develop their abilities and is possible without out going to the university. That is the BS of the universities sell so that you will pay their exorbitant fees.
Quoting Christoffer
It is a good idea to read all of the thread if you want to participate properly. I have not, as I explained to someone else, made any demands. You stated what you think was the solution and I pointed out some of the problems with your idea.
Quoting Christoffer
Both of which have been discussed at length, the former idea causes too many problems and would be expensive. The latter is a long term project that would not fulfill today's needs.
Quoting Christoffer
That s the only solution that I have ever offered, educate the people. But as I said earlier it will not work until the people have a reason to give up their guns. By reason I mean that possibly the feel safe without them, when do you think that will happen?
Quoting Christoffer
For some that claims to be so superior at thinking, that is very badly expressed. It has nothing to do with philosophical discussion around justice and ethics.
Let me help you to express it in a clearer way.
Because gun control has elements of MORALITY and ethics it can be discussed philosophically.
I think that sounds better, don't you?
Quoting Christoffer
I never said it was, I just wanted to find out how you would explain it. Bummer right.
Quoting Christoffer
Well I suppose I could try imitating your dickhead tone, but I don't think that I have enough of a stuck up snobbish attitude to pull it off. But I will try if you want.
Quoting Christoffer
Wow, so your [s]opinions[/s] thoughts are correct because you use the dialectical approach. Where did you find all of the information that you used to come to these certified conclusions, I would love to see it. I think that you really need to go to the USA and offer you assistance in solving this problem. I don't think that they have anyone like you over there because this problem has been going on for years and years and no one has been able to come up with a solution.
Quoting Christoffer
I don't know. I am not in the habit, as you seem to be, of testing everyone's ability to use their dialectic skills. How many times have you tried to have dialectic discussions with people in the street?
Quoting Christoffer
Plenty, I work as a high school teacher. That is how we get kids to improve themselves sinse they took away our whips and bats.
Quoting Christoffer
Well I could say that I am only here for the beer, but the pub closed with the old forum and I don't think anyone has figured out how to open a new one here.
Quoting Christoffer
So you think that maybe if I quoted something from Socrates to support what I have said about gun control it would be more believable? Hmm, I will have to try that sometime. Or maybe if I continuously asked questions to provoke people to think but refused to admit I had any personal knowledge It would help my case. Reading about other peoples' way of thinking does not mean that you will be able to think like them. If that was the case I would be able to run circles around Witty.
While we are on the topic of peoples' knowledge about philosophy, did you ever figure out why those people came up with the idea that everything was made up of water?
Quoting Christoffer
Sinner, blasphemer, how dare you mention twatter and fartbook here. I hate those things with a passion that borders on murderous.
Quoting Christoffer
Before I start searching for my old degrees, could you show me where some of these place are. More than 20 years is enough in teaching. With 22 years in industry before that I might think about moving on.
Quoting Christoffer
So they are not solving problems but giving opinions on whether thing would be moral or not. Why has no one ever thought of doing this before?
Quoting Christoffer
True, but there are not that many moral problems, most of them are technical. Most development companies have legal department that deal with anything dodgy, Maybe that is where they would work.
Quoting Christoffer
I never said I had an answer, at least not one that would work as needed, but I did point out that a lot of these things have been discussed before and I have given the reasons why I doubt they would not work. I was not demand absolute solutions, but with all of your superior dialectic prowess I thought that maybe you would be the one to come up with the right answer. Seems not to do so.
Quoting Christoffer
You are repeating yourself.
Quoting Christoffer
And a simple epistemic fact should be easy for you to prove, so go ahead and do it. But before you try answering think about the people that developed dialectic methods, where did they study? How did they come up with the ideas if it is not possible without education?
Clues:
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/history/greek.html
https://www.britannica.com/topic/dialectic-logic
Quoting Christoffer
I never get excited by wishywashy discussions with people that think they are better than the rest just because they studied philosophy but know nothing of reality. Reality here is used in the sense of everydayness. But I do enjoy it when the fish are biting.
Quoting Christoffer
I am not really sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that someone has been judging me because of my behavior? If that is so, that is not my problem and it is very unphilosophical to use this as an argument to prove that I am wrong.
Quoting Christoffer
I have not mocked you for any knowledge that you have provided, what ever knowledge that might be.
Quoting Christoffer
I get some very interesting responses from the people with interesting things to say. Especially those that don't take the time to write long post full of criticism.
Quoting Christoffer
Never judge a book by its cover. I seriously doubt that you have read even half the number of philosophy books that I have. But I don't like to swagger around telling everyone that I know everything and common people don't.
Quoting Christoffer
Do unto others what they have done to you. You insulted most of humanity so don't cry when someone tell you that you do not know everything. Ask around, I am extremely polite to all that are polite to me.
Quoting Christoffer
So you get points for trying. But in your own words philosophical tools and methods of dialectic are supposed to come up with the answers. So why don't they? Is there no way you can go beyond your answer to reach the solution? You said that these tools were used for that purpose.
If you cannot go any further towards a solution to the problem then what does that mean?
Does it mean that you cannot use them properly? Or maybe you are ignorant of the true facts of the situation.
Could it maybe mean that there is no solution? No, you said that it would always reach a solution so it cannot be that.
Quoting Christoffer
There we go with the challenges again. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have done that countless times yourself without realizing it. Do you really think that you would recognize a dialectic if it hit you in the face? Actually you might, if you read about Meno.
Explain to me how I could prove that I have an understanding of what we are discussing. Would you like me too some tests or something maybe? No I am not being hypocritical, I leave things like that to others that cannot "win" an argument without putting people down to do so.
Saludos
The common man
Our problem is that all of the people are leaving because of the violence and Trump is getting pissed off about it.
The president keeps trying to convince everyone that crime, especially murder rates have dropped. According to his statistics they have, but a guy shot dead while driving a car should not count as a traffic accident.
Death from lead poisoning also seems to have gone up here, funny thing is that the people seem to be taking all the lead at one time.
Use of plastic bags and ropes to tie your hands to stop you from removing the bag seem to be a popular method of suicide recently as well. They say the instructions for tying your own hands can googled.
And no one is getting put in jail either.
It doesn't take much to understand the basic concepts of dialectics and dialectic discourse, but do you think that if you went out on the street and asked random people what "dialectic" is, I can guarantee you that very few even knows what it is. You are trying to argue that people know dialectic methods without training when the closest is that they might accidentally do a dialectic, but do not have it as routine. This way of arguing that you are doing now is populistic, it's the anti-intellectual ideas that experts aren't needed, that knowledge is bullshit and that common sense is enough. It's the same BS that populists are spreading around, undermining any kind of intellectual discussion and progress in favor of emotional outbursts from people with low education. Their perspective is extremely important, but this anti-intellectual BS is actually disgusting and disrespectful against those who actually put a lot of time and effort into learning.
Quoting Sir2u
You didn't point out problems. I'm not sure you actually understood the points I've made before smashing the replay button.
Quoting Sir2u
And you want a magical unicorn somewhere in the middle, please explain what large scale options you have outside of those two, I'm all ears, because that right there is no criticism to what I said, it's a denial of how society works in a democracy. This is why your demand on us to write an absolute solution is naive.
Quoting Sir2u
You are talking in circles. First, you say, exactly what I've been saying all the time, that to solve all this is to educate people. But then you say that there won't be a change until people feel safe. You are putting the cart before the horse.
The whole point of educating people is to make them understand that they will only feel truly safe when all cogs in the machine have been put in place.
Quoting Sir2u
I do not claim that, stop your mockery bullshit, it's childish.
Quoting Sir2u
So why do you even question the idea that gun control is a philosophical discussion? You're doing semantical nonsense arguments to "win the day" instead of doing a dialectic.
Quoting Sir2u
No, you are just incapable of linguistic pragmatism. There's a fallacy called ambiguity fallacy. You question gun control as a philosophical topic, then you question the philosophical category in which the discussion of gun control goes under, to arrive at a conclusion that was linguistically pragmatically understood from the get-go.
The initial text you questioned gun control to be a philosophical topic was this:
If you actually read that again you see that I pointed out that because gun control is a topic that can be discussed philosophically and should be, there are better tools through it than just common talk which can be affected by lobbyist and political rhetoric. Philosophical discourse is better equipped to look at the actual facts of the matter.
How you changed that to questioning gun control as a philosophical topic, I don't know, and I don't know how you arrive at your last conclusion which is basically saying the same thing as I pointed out in the first place.
You are arguing in circles in order to just win any points you can, but what's your actual point, really?
Ambiguity fallacy.
Quoting Sir2u
And you just keep going. Maybe you should look at who had the tone in the first place, who uses the most ad hominem words and arguments? Maybe you could even look at how others answer to you, then compare the data and do some self-reflection.
Your interpretation as snobbish is in your own head, you read some counter-argument to your argument and instead of keeping with a traditional calm and philosophical dialectic behavior, you just burst out insults back to the one making the counter-argument. Why do you think I point out that you seem to lack philosophical methodology knowledge? Because you don't show any of it.
Quoting Sir2u
What conclusions? That we either have the option of enforcing laws against people's wishes or educate them to understand why strict gun control is good for them so that they vote in that direction? It's basic logic of the democratic system. And the dialectic approach I'm speaking of is how we discuss this as a group. You aren't doing it, you basically just attack what you don't like and won't actually use any dialectic approach. And when someone does it to you, by dissecting your argument, you just call them a variety of ad hominems. It's extremely childish behavior on a philosophical forum and you don't seem to understand why so many argue against you in here.
Quoting Sir2u
It's not about testing people's ability. Are you intentionally misunderstanding what you read in order to just give whatever counter you can on everything? You do understand that what I'm talking about is that because not all know about dialectic discourse methods, they will lean back on emotional opinions. It's why arguments without method often fail because there's no self-reflection through the dialectic method. People just bash their opinions in other people's heads, this is a fact. You can just look at the hyperbolic comments on comment sections anywhere online and you will understand what I'm talking about.
Quoting Sir2u
An attempt at a joke I presume?
Quoting Sir2u
You're just ranting irrelevant stuff right now. I'm talking about methods of discourse, not quoting philosophers. Methods in order to get rid of irrelevant rants.
Quoting Sir2u
I didn't think we were talking about specific companies. Moral problems, both internally as a company and externally with what the company is doing, applies where it is applicable. Within this topic, it is very relevant to have ethic philosophers consulting decisions of gun laws. But it seems you view philosophers as opinion bullshitters and not professionals? Like, better to get some street smart people to go through the moral complexities of political questions that will affect billions of people in all manner of life situations than a philosopher in ethics.
Quoting Sir2u
I did, but you don't agree that it is a solution, or don't understand how it's a solution, therefore you want another solution. And once again, I was referring to a dialectic discourse, which I urged you to do on the solution given, which you didn't, you just wanted another solution. So, I can't do more before you do your part of the dialectic, and that has been my point all along.
Quoting Sir2u
People who haven't trained in argumentative methodology, who don't know what dialectic means, is or is done, does not have that method as a tool while debating and discussing. Most people do not have such training. Those who have such training has most likely been studying some kind of philosophy.
Therefore, most common people don't have the methods needed for a dialectic method for knowledge.
In other terms:
X is dialectic understanding, Y is normal argumentative understanding. X leads to Z which is improved knowledge and better arguments, Y leads to A which is an argumentative emotional stalemate.
p1 X most likely leads to Z but does never lead to A.
p2 Y most likely leads to A but rarely lead to Z.
p3 X is common with those trained in argumentative methodology, Y is common with everyone else.
Therefore the probability of X being superior to reach Z is higher than that Y leads to Z and since X is more common with those trained in the methodology, it is lower in quantity than Y which is the rest.
It's a simple fact of probability. If you don't agree with the above probability, please feel free to counter it properly. The probability is a large scale probability, which means, in this case, that if a proper dialectic method is recommended to understand all nuances of a complex political issue, fewer people are able to reach a nuanced conclusion.
Quoting Sir2u
And you judge people without knowing anything about them or their experiences in life and reality but can't entertain the thought and simple fact that people can both be trained in philosophy and have real experiences.
You judge character, the way someone writes. It's fallacious, biased and disrespectful and if anyone needs a reality check it's definitely you.
Quoting Sir2u
If you use ad hominems in your arguments, you fail to argue and can't demand more of others. If you behave badly in a discussion, that is your responsibility and if people criticize you for your behavior it damn straight is your responsibility to do better. It's rather hypocritical to call out others behavior when they react to your behavior. That is what's called a tu quoque. If you go to a party and start punching someone and then get hit back by others, would you then call them out for hitting you? Like you have been mistreated in any way? Wouldn't that be delusional, to say the least. The ad hominem name-calling, the mockery etc. just because someone formulates their text in a certain way that you don't like is, as I said numerous times, childish.
Quoting Sir2u
You just have a total lack of insight into how you write to people. And even the end of that sentence is a mockery. It's a bullying mentality, like some insecure teenager trying to hit back at every chance they get. To me, it's just irrelevant and desperate ad hominem-rants which gradually, for each time you write such things, lowers my respect of your knowledge in proper discourse.
If you want respect and good behavior from others, you should lead by example.
Quoting Sir2u
Maybe people just don't care about answering to you because of how you write? I shouldn't, I mean, especially since I'm answering to a long post full of criticism... oh, the irony.
Quoting Sir2u
I don't doubt that you doubt that. I also don't go around telling things like that. I mean, you should never judge a book by its cover, right? Especially when you don't even understand the books content or the point I made.
Quoting Sir2u
Is it an insult to point out that some know more of argumentative methodology than others? Is it an insult to humanity if I say that some people know cooking more than others and that some chefs are masters of cooking? If you cannot understand the simple probability logic and instead interpret that as an insult to humanity and that you shall take up the sword to defend humanity against this vile creature who said that there are fewer masters of cooking in this world than common people who mastered cooking, then I can't help you. Then you simply don't understand a word of what I said and instead just emotionally burst out ad hominems because you cannot wrap your head around what I actually said. And if you don't agree with the probability, please counter the argument I presented earlier, in a nice dialectic manner, so that I can read it without having to read your emotional burst of populistic anti-intellectualism, it's tiring.
Quoting Sir2u
It means you don't participate in a dialectic discourse in order to reach a good solution, you are more interested in blasting anti-intellectualism towards those who propose methods to reach solutions. When presented with an initial solution, you don't return in a dialectical way, you do emotional outbursts and then write nonsense answers. As I read other answers to you, I'm not quite alone in thinking this way. Maybe that should be a hint to you, but you'll probably just ignore it.
Quoting Sir2u
Deflecting rants of nonsense. You have been given answers. You have a solution told and an opening to counter with an argument.
You are totally unable to self-reflect upon your own writing. You just burst out emotional rants with no content. I've answered this long post and yet, after reading all of it, you have actually not said anything new at all. You repeat your earlier points without reading answers to them, I mean truly read them. You continue a bullying attitude which is the same kind of anti-intellectual nonsense that populists push over and over, and which I think is beneath discussions on philosophical forums. If you think I have low respect for common people outside of philosophy then no, I don't have low respect. But "common" people like you certainly question whether or not I should.
You've read my point and argument on knowledge of dialectic methodology and you read my point on what is the best solution in order to restrict guns. I'm still waiting for a response to those, worthy of a philosophical discussion. I will exclude any further nonsense rants from you and focus on that. Want to express your bullying populist attitude, go punch a pillow.
Quoting Christoffer
I actually was finished with this discussion, but when I got to work this morning I decide to do some investigation. Where I work we have teaching software that allows the teacher to create local network chats and polls. The polls can be done anonymously so students feel free to express themselves. I set a task for the ninth graders.
"In one sentence explain how you would fix the country's violence problem"
As I explained, I live in a country that was know as the murder capital of the world and many still think it is. There are very few guns here and not many people can afford to buy one and pay the high cost of the registration of the gun. There are strict laws controlling who can buy guns. Most of the weapons are in the hands of the army, police and criminal gangs and no one is really sure who has most.
Out of 75 9th graders these are the answers in order of popularity.
1. Teach the gang members how to live without harming people. Show them what they need to know to get a job. 58 votes
2. Get more good cops and take away the guns by force. 10 votes
3. Just shoot the fuckers that have guns. 5 votes This is the actual phrase used by 3, the others were not so polite.
4. How the hell should I know, that is what politicians are for. 1
5. I don't care, when I graduate i am getting the hell out of here. 1 vote
Now if it is not possible for people to solve problems without your fancy shmancy dialectic tools, how the hell did they come up with the same answer as you. Either they are just as good at thinking as you, or you are no better than they are.
Do you know what hydraulic resistance is? It is a part of your everyday life. You could not explain it to anyone could you? When you drive a car or go the gym you know how to use the machines and what they do without knowing how these things do what they do. Not knowing the official terminology does not mean that you cannot do something. People have a habit of figuring things out, that is how we evolved.
Quoting Christoffer
I am not, as I have repeated so many times, trying to win anything. I do not come to do anything except entertain myself, reading and comment on some of the threads.
Quoting Christoffer
So you spent all that money on a college degree and cannot get a job then come here and talk down to people as a time waster. You rant on about how others are not capable of doing what you do but at this point have failed to provide even a single piece of evidence that this is true.
Quoting Christoffer
I have not seen things like this in sooooo many years, but I might still remember the basics. Have to think about it.
But seeing as you have brought up this wonderful topic, maybe you would care to show us your skills. Show us how you used this method to come to the conclusion that education was the method to solve the gun violence problem. Now I would hate for you to think that I am being abusive for asking this, but I really think I might remember more after a quick refresher course.
When I asked the kids how they had reached their conclusions they said that it was just common sense.
Apart from saying that I am naive here are a few others things that you have offered to support your case that education is the way to solve the problem of gun violence.
Quoting Christoffer
What do you call it when you use information that is not provable to try to make the other person in an discussion look silly so that you can win? I am sure that their is a name for it, but I just cannot remember.
Quoting Christoffer
That looks like the sentence I was going to write to you. You judge people just by the way they write.
Quoting Christoffer
On your point and argument on knowledge of dialectic methodology, I think that you are very wrong to say that common people cannot do it. They might not know the name for it or even that they are doing it, but they do it. But I am sure that I have already said that.
And I did read your point on what is the best solution in order to restrict guns. I even answered it if you would take the time to read and stop blathering on about your freaking college education and how great you are and how naive other people are.
Quoting Sir2u
I gave you the information you needed to continue with a dialectic discussion and you ignored it.
Quoting Christoffer
You closed the door and flatly refused to look any further. It is your answer or none. Does that sound familiar?
Quoting Christoffer
How about that, you must be reading my mind. Your rants about the dialect discussion were repetitive, uninformative, insulting and boring.
You were asked several questions which you completely ignored, which I think was rather rude of you.
You make sweeping claims about knowing how other people think and act, and when you were asked to provide evidence of this and other claims you made you either ignored it or gave some irrelevant answer to it.
You talk about how important it is to have knowledge to be able to have a dialectic discussion about a topic, but show no real knowledge about the gun problem in the USA.
So, if you would like to explain how my students came to the same conclusion you did without your training,
or if you would like to try to explain to me why my answer to your proposed solution is irrelevant,
or if you would try to explain to me your theory of how people actually came to the conclusion that everything is made of water,
or show us how you used your methods to reach your conclusions about the solution to gun violence,
then I will listen to you. But I will exclude any further nonsense rants from you including but not limited to professing the greatness of the dialectic method.
But before we close, I must say that I admire your writing, as an EASL person you write OK.
Since you start out with the same kind of attitude that I was urging you to stop with I have no reason to continue wasting my time on your ego. You have been given answers and you refuse to stop using biases and fallacies. I went to this forum to get away from having to argue against populist rhetoric.
I think the point is that the presence of the guns makes politeness both impossible and irrelevant. In the presence of the gun, you are constrained by fear of being shot (and maybe killed) to say whatever the gun-holder wants to hear. Politeness is something you do voluntarily, not for fear of your life. :worry:
You do realise that the evidence is on display in public, and that if you try to misrepresent, you risk being easily exposed? Look:
Quoting Sir2u
You really should learn when to concede. You very clearly changed the subject to the broader subject of violent crime.
Quoting Sir2u
Again, let's look at the evidence:
Quoting S
Quoting S
The claim that "the UK is the violent crime capital of Europe and even beats the US" was based on a statistic which a credible fact checking site has rated as false.
And andrewk similarly exposed some of the other links you referred to in an attempt to support your claim.
It's a good thing that there are people who actually look into these things critically instead of just swallowing them up.
What next? Let's see:
Quoting Sir2u
Which changes the subject once again, so I made a point which connected knife crime to gun crime, thereby making a relevant point, given the topic. This point of mine was not only relevant, but well supported, which is more than you can say.
Quoting Sir2u
Yeah, and as we all know, papers never exaggerate or spin things a certain way or even more or less just completely make things up. But even if your point about knife crime in the UK is true enough, that still doesn't make it relevant in this context.
It's just the same old whataboutery. The last recourse of those who do not have a proper argument, but still want to look as though they're making a good point.
OK, I will be polite to you.
Please explain why the response I gave to your solution to gun crime is not worth talking about or irrelevant.
Thank you.
The same applies to you.
In none of the posts I made along that line of discussion did I refer to gun control, for the simple reason that we were discussing armed societies being normal not gun control.
The only times I mentioned guns was to respond to your comment about wounds and that people might buy them for protection.
There was no change of topic, just parallel discussions. The same thing happened when I was talking to andrewk, separate discussion.
I wonder if you would have even looked at the list of references if I has not specifically mentioned them. And if would would care to take note, I posted the link as a reference to the UK being violent nothing about guns.
The fact that you continued to talk only about guns is your problem, but I have been talking about something else as well
The original comment about armed societies was clearly about firearms, not any old weapon. Not slingshots, maces, dynamite, or lightsabers. So it's you, and whoever you were discussing this tangent with, who has gone off topic and taken the phrase out of context.
Jesus. What a waste of time that was.
Anyway, I rejoined when you and some other guy were talking about shooting criminals. If not with firearms, then with what? Water pistols?
And of course the UK is violent. What place isn't? That's a massive climb down from your original claim. You should be more open about the fact that the original claim was shown to be dubious. I took one look at that link and raised an eyebrow. And lo and behold...
Hey guys, look, this website says that guns aren't that bad after all:
www.obviously-dodgy-rightwing-propoganda.com
Seems legit! :rofl:
Have you ever found yourself in the position where you are being irritated and annoyed by a very slow driver doing 15mph on a narrow winding road, you are late already and this guy in front of you will not get out of the way.
You don't try to push him out of the way or over take in a dangerous manner do you? Why not? Fear. Fear stops you from doing these things. The same as many other things in life that you do not do.
You might say that you do not try to push him out of the way because you were taught to respect others, that maybe true, but I cannot imagine anyone in that situation just chugging along happily behind him. Almost everyone would be calling him nasty names and honking the horn, neither of which is respectful.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Fear of the law, fear of offending, fear of what others might think about us, fear of losing what we have and lots of others control our lives. Exactly how is that different from fear of a gun?
Being polite is something most people do out of habit, and not always voluntarily. Lots of people hate their bosses, their neighbors, their mother in laws but they are polite because it is convenient to do so.
:lol: :lol: :rofl: :rofl:
But I enjoyed it and that is what counts, at least for me.
Well yeah, the schadenfreude at your expense was quite satisfying, but it's odd that you got so much enjoyment out of it.
I enjoy seeing you get your knickers in a twist.
But please be a man for once and admit that you were off topic as much as me.
No, we were at cross purposes with you apparently talking past me. I stuck to the original topic. You made it about something else. I tried to steer the conversion back to the original topic. Don't try to make out as though I'm complicit in your act of taking things off track.