Guns and stuff

[2ndRateMind]

One's heart goes out the bereft relatives and blameless wounded of Las Vegas. And one's prayers for the innocent dead.

Yet, one notices that this is hardly an isolated occurrence. Quite why civilians need a right to buy and bear arms in the form of automatic assault weapons evades me. The more that are sold, the more likely they will fall into the hands of the mentally unstable, the criminal, and the downright malicious. No civilised country could or should or would tolerate such lax gun laws for long.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

To me, the 2. Amendment of USA keeps more people straight than otherwise. You may also update on the latest statement by NRA (National Rifles Association).
Link: https://home.nra.org/joint-statement.

The way I see it, guns (and other self-defence measures) keep the numbers of tortured people down! Also, guns assure a (relatively) decent death and not too much torture on the individuals. Guns also make one capable to intervene when serious crime scenes arise (eg. the abduction of children to torture or, plainly, the severe abuse taking place publicly). Indeed, guns and other self-defence have created the ideal Straight-USA whereas the "ideal" for Europe is "coping" and being crooked and to create crooked people by subtle/overt (torture) threats and "promises of great rewards".

Final: as NRA statement says, there should be "additional regulation" (bump stocks?). But beware what a non-guns state could bring, more torture and torture-threats to the general population. The outlawed self-defence condition of a (widely) corrupt Europe is not the answer (toward Utopia).

[Bust Nak]

I did. History is on my side. Massacre after massacre after massacre. Government after government dearming the civilian populations first.

Imagine an armed German population and the history books for 1933 was that a maniac lone gunman had killed up and coming progressive political leader Adolph Hitler.

I am imagining it, that does not change the fact that the German military would make mince meat of the German population regardless of whether they are armed or not. Pointing out that they were unarmed at the time does not change anything. Your scenario is counting on fighting a tyrannical government that does not have the backing of the military.

It's just defeatist mentality to talk the way you are. Imagine Winston Churchill decided to surrender.

If it's the defeatist mentality you are worrying about, then what's exactly is stopping you from fighting back against the armed forces with sticks and stone? These weapons are no less effective than AR-15s against the US military in the grand scheme of things.

The thing is you are more pro gun than me. The army only has guns through taxation.

Wait, you don't want the military to have guns?

If they didn't have guns and used the threat of violence who would ever pay their taxes?

I would.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 32 by Bust Nak]

How can you guarantee that the killing of a lunatic leader doesn't change things?

How can you guarantee a corrupt scheme of government maintains the support of the army? Even without the use of weapons?

How can you guarantee that the numbers of armed civilians (militia) doesn't add force/credibility/popular support to those numbers of the army (even in the early revolt phase)?

It's almost as you insist that no individual action can change anything as blanket statement. If we take this further, if no individual action can be undertaken then nothing can ever change anything... Thus, a weird reductio ad absurdum argument appears, as "no collective action can take place because no individual action can take place, thus further, all things happen magically! "Stay futile! All action is in vain!" You know, I don't think so! As a matter of fact!

Also, as Kennedy possibly gets assassinated for his involvement with the Bay of Pigs and failed CIA operation, shouldn't this tell future presidents something?

[JP Cusick]

Quite why civilians need a right to buy and bear arms in the form of automatic assault weapons evades me. The more that are sold, the more likely they will fall into the hands of the mentally unstable, the criminal, and the downright malicious. No civilised country could or should or would tolerate such lax gun laws for long.

The NRA agrees to put regulations on the rapid fire "bump fire stocks" so that mass murder must have moved a mountain.

The gun owners of America are not really against law-and-order.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 24 by 2ndRateMind]

I can't help you if you overstep logic so easily. Minds have to come first.

I'm not overstepping logic. I have the greatest respect for reason and logic. I am simply suggesting that attitude, as determined by love or hatred, will determine whether reason and logic is put to good use, or evil. And that that attitude is determined by the heart, not the mind.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

To me, the 2. Amendment of USA keeps more people straight than otherwise. You may also update on the latest statement by NRA (National Rifles Association).
Link: https://home.nra.org/joint-statement.

The way I see it, guns (and other self-defence measures) keep the numbers of tortured people down! Also, guns assure a (relatively) decent death and not too much torture on the individuals. Guns also make one capable to intervene when serious crime scenes arise (eg. the abduction of children to torture or, plainly, the severe abuse taking place publicly). Indeed, guns and other self-defence have created the ideal Straight-USA whereas the "ideal" for Europe is "coping" and being crooked and to create crooked people by subtle/overt (torture) threats and "promises of great rewards".

Final: as NRA statement says, there should be "additional regulation" (bump stocks?). But beware what a non-guns state could bring, more torture and torture-threats to the general population. The outlawed self-defence condition of a (widely) corrupt Europe is not the answer (toward Utopia).

So I think we can agree that torture is 'a bad thing'. And I think we can also agree that murder is 'a bad thing', either through lengthy torture or instant eradication. The issue for this thread is whether the US civilian right to keep and bear arms in the form of automatic assault weaponry is 'a bad thing' or 'a good thing'.

We do not have that right in the UK, to own military grade weaponry, though we can, under license, own shotguns and rifles for hunting and pest control and sport. And 40 times less people are killed by gun crime per 100,000 population as in the US. So it seems that this gun right to assault rifles in the US is conducive to murder, which we are already agreed is 'a bad thing'.

Whether these murders have some alleviating moral worth in preventing tortures remains for you to demonstrate, in statistical support of your point of view. I think you will have trouble finding evidence of this, but if you can, I look forward to reading it.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Aetixintro]

Whether these murders have some alleviating moral worth in preventing tortures remains for you to demonstrate, in statistical support of your point of view. I think you will have trouble finding evidence of this, but if you can, I look forward to reading it.

Answer:
At least for suicides:
It's stated that "Approximately one-half of suicides are committed by firearm, accounting for two-thirds of all firearms deaths. [21,334 of 33,599 in 2014]"[24-reference]
Those are decent suicides! In Europe we do all sorts of crazy things in order to (finally) die because either it's the corrupt authorities hunting the suicide candidates only to get more torture on them. A corruption we in Europe usually never can do anything about because the self-protection is outlawed, that is, guns, pepperspray, tazers and killer knives. And that's after the 20 times the suicide candidates "bounce" about before they ide!

"The same article [USA Today] stated that there are far fewer homicides than suicides in the country; in fact, homicide rates have fallen by half in the U.S. since 1991."
So homcides are bad, but the numbers are improving and the victims have gotten the death by gun shot, not tortured a few times first as in Europe.

For the instances of torture in Europe, pick out the stats for murders, missing people and a good portion of the suicides who "failed" to die when tortured!

At spot no. 48 USA comes in with 12.6 per 100 000 people.
At spot no. 102 Norway comes in with 9.3 per 100 K people.
Hurray! At spot no. 123 United Kingdom comes in with 7.4 per 100 K people.
Now, from the above and given Europe's tendency to sodomy, corruption and lying for the facade, also for protection (because a wounded prey in Europe usually gets "taken" quickly).

You know, I happen to think that USA takes it (accepts the deaths, some also "beautiful"), all factors considered! (Don't say you're young, please, because then you have quite a bit of learning to do!)

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... icide_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_i ... ted_States

Some additional:
Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York The Problem of Evil. "...of the widespread practice of torture." and "...all examples of moral evil or cruelty: human beings inflicting suffering on other human beings..."

"Good?"

[bluethread]

However, the argument that federal gun legislation is going to be able to control all circumstances or stop mass murders is just not supported by the evidence.

Who made that argument? I simply pointed out that it's very difficult to argue that fewer guns will not result in less gun violence since we know that zero guns results in zero gun violence.

How would we have fewer guns? They compose a commodity that is in demand.

[Bust Nak]

How can you guarantee that the killing of a lunatic leader doesn't change things?

How can you guarantee a corrupt scheme of government maintains the support of the army? Even without the use of weapons?

How can you guarantee that the numbers of armed civilians (militia) doesn't add force/credibility/popular support to those numbers of the army (even in the early revolt phase)?

I cannot guarantee any of that. What I can guarantee is that you will lose to the US military regardless of the civilian population's arsenal.

It's almost as you insist that no individual action can change anything as blanket statement. If we take this further, if no individual action can be undertaken then nothing can ever change anything... Thus, a weird reductio ad absurdum argument appears, as "no collective action can take place because no individual action can take place, thus further, all things happen magically! "Stay futile! All action is in vain!" You know, I don't think so! As a matter of fact!

What on Earth are you talking about here? You are under the impression that when I said civilian population, I was somehow implying individual action?

Also, as Kennedy possibly gets assassinated for his involvement with the Bay of Pigs and failed CIA operation, shouldn't this tell future presidents something?

I don't see what that has to do with my guarantee that the civilians would lose against the US military. That alone is enough to dismantle the "fight tyranny" defense for keeping your guns. Besides, assassinating one tyrant would just pave the way for the next tyrant. Any fight against this hypothetical tyrannical regime, hinges on one thing only - which side has the backing of the military. Guns in civilians' hand will not be a relevant factor.

[bluethread]

What I can guarantee is that you will lose to the US military regardless of the civilian population's arsenal.

That is also what the aristocracy in England thought. There are always multiple factors that play into such a situation.

Besides, assassinating one tyrant would just pave the way for the next tyrant. Any fight against this hypothetical tyrannical regime, hinges on one thing only - which side has the backing of the military. Guns in civilians' hand will not be a relevant factor.

Unless one is led by someone like George "Cincinnatus" Washington. Also, weapons in civilian hands have always been a relevant factor in war. From Jael with a tent peg to the Swiss civil defense, and the French underground, they have been the wild card that have tipped to balance in many cases.