The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Berzerker]

My original suspicion was that part of the frustration that you had was that you typed out a paragraph pointing out how the Abrahamic god instructed to not kill, and then had it dismissed with "that's not what I meant" instead of discussing anything you wrote.

I didn't dismiss what he said about the Bible, I explained the verse is about murder and that Moses and some men killed a guy for gathering firewood on the Sabbath. I never said the Bible or the Abrahamic god decreed our human rights, the 10 Commandments violate human rights. Other people are dragging god and religion into this, not me.

Yep, I saw The Matrix... Men in Black too. The bottom line is that the claim that one thing, especially one living thing has "rights" and another living thing doesn't, requires an explanation of where those "rights" come from and why. If we want to use "existence" as a placeholder for some entity, or concept that is somehow higher and in some superior moral position to "cause I said so", then whether you call it "the great spaghetti monster", "Jebus", "Baal", "Zuul", "the Universe"... whatever, its all the same concept for the purposes of this issue. Jeez, just like politics... people are always jerking themselves off with imaginary, irrelevant nuances, trying to artificially complicate their simplistic positions and ideologies... then they deflect into arguing to the death over their BS overcomplications rather than addressing the real issue. Its boring sometimes, particularly when its so repetitive, and such an obvious deflection tactic.

You have a right to life when other people are involved, you do not have a right to life if lions eat you. Rights are moral claims among people, not species. If chickens have rights, they apply only to chickens.
"Existence" has made you an individual, the very essence of your rights is based on property starting with you owning yourself.

Now why do you lump the universe in with various deities from other people's religions and the atheist's spaghetti monster? If existence was a placeholder for one, which would you pick? I pick the universe, but you're picking the spaghetti monster for me. Well, the God of Moses. Cant you just ignore religion and look at the universe and reach certain conclusions, like murder is wrong because the victim has the moral high ground, ie the right to live? All your talk about deflection this and over complicate that is what you're doing.

So yeah sorry El_Mac, I don't mean to snipe/sneer at you... I get it..,. the alternate/non-religious god, or whatever... its just that those specifics aren't relevant to this issue. Either you're following/using a particular well-known religious philosophy to justify your great spaghetti monster given gun-rights, which we can then discuss on those terms... or you're following some other made-up monkeysqueeze, which we can discuss on those terms. What I'm weary of, is all this self-serving flip-floppery to whatever poorly reasoned contradictory justification suits the moment.

I said rights are superior moral claims and come from existence, you own yourself. Your rebuttal was a mis-translated bible verse and a spaghetti monster. Gun rights are an extension of your right to self defense which in turn derives from your right to life. No religion, no gods, no spaghetti monster, just existence...or the universe. I prefer existence, we may find out they're not synonymous.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Gun rights are an extension of your right to self defense which in turn derives from your right to life.

Is there some logic that prevents extending that to the preemptive extermination of everyone else, in self defense? Gun ownership doesn't make you more safe, it just makes people who refuse to be rational feel more safe, while making them and everyone else actually less safe. So why stop there? As long as we are allowing their erroneous feelings to impact everyone, why shouldn't we give them the feeling of security that would come from having no threats? You can't just say that exterminating everyone else violates the rights of the others, because you are already allowing them to massage their feelings through putting everyone else at risk.

So, an arbitrary limit? You can put everyone at risk by having guns that make you feel safer, but you can't have a bomb vest. Why not? Why can't I have a vest linked to my heartbeat that will take down several city blocks if it stops so that I know everyone around me has a strong self interest in doing me no harm? That would make me feel really safe. It puts them at greater risk, but so did letting me have a gun, so why not? Why a gun and not a tank?

 

[El_Machinae]

Suppose we agree that I own myself. I'm even a partial owner of our society.

Why is your insistence on bringing a gun into our society greater than my insistence that we not? I don't agree that your gun makes me safer, and so I'm not allowing you to bring it into a place that I own.

You are insisting that I have to tolerate unsafe things. But your claim on what I must tolerate is equal to mine

I would suspect that the claim against preemptive murder is just the Axiom that people own their own lives.

It's a stance that I mostly hold myself, which is why I run into problems when discussing third trimester abortion, animals of certain levels of sentience, and robbing from Future people

 

[Sommerswerd]

I never said the Bible or the Abrahamic god decreed our human rights, the 10 Commandments violate human rights. Other people are dragging god and religion into this, not me.

*sigh* You said:

Its the argument in the Declaration of Independence.

You can raise the canard about the founding fathers all being seekrit atheists or "deists" or whatever but that's a red herring. Jefferson knew damn well when he wrote "endowed by their Creator" with a capital "C" that he was invoking the Christian god... so whether he was a seekrit spaghetti monster, or Baal worshiper is irrelevant. The Declaration of independence refers to god-given rights and by invoking it you're invoking god. Your attempt to deny as much is preposterous... blatantly so.

 

[Sommerswerd]

You have a right to life when other people are involved, you do not have a right to life if lions eat you.

So if I fall in the lion enclosure at the zoo and lions eat me I no longer have any right to life? And I guess if the zookeepers shoot the lion to stop it from maiming/killing me they've acted immorally because they certainly aren't defending any right to life that I have... since I have no right to life vis-a-vis a lion attack, right? I'm sure every murderer in America will be happy to hear that if lions kill people for him, he hasn't done anything wrong. Give me a break dude.

So if the Rights are moral claims among people, not species. If chickens have rights, they apply only to chickens.

citation needed

"Existence" has made you an individual, the very essence of your rights is based on property starting with you owning yourself.

citation needed

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Does that mean genocide is moral if it goes unpunished? Fleeing is self defense, dont matter if you're successful or not.

Genocide isn't *inherently* anything. Humans give it negative value for both obvious and not-so-obvious reasons. It's uncontroversially bad per human utility functions.

The universe, however, doesn't care at all. Nothing about reality changes if 1 million humans kill another 2 million humans other than the human condition. The sun still burns, ants still commit genocide of their own on wide scales, the murderer's dog still likes him, etc.

Successful military conquests happened throughout history and were usually not punished. I'd not call them "moral", but they still happened and are part of human history. What, if anything, is learned from that is up to humans of the present. Unfortunately, it seems rather difficult for humans to learn from history on average, even if they memorize it.

Does that mean genocide is moral if it goes unpunished? Fleeing is self defense, dont matter if you're successful or not.

I don't mean "they try to run away but are out of shape so they run slowly" or something like that. I mean they literally "panic and effectively do nothing at all".

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't know, saying that human on human genocide is not inherently immoral is a bit like saying that the definition of a circle doesn't actually exist.

And then, because of that, not allowing me to say that an orange is more circular than a horse. I mean, fine, it's just a definition. But it's still true.

Fun fact, the second book of the most famous holy scripture on the planet is glorifying a series of successful genocides and calling them holy

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't know, saying that human on human genocide is not inherently immoral is a bit like saying that the definition of a circle doesn't actually exist.

Nothing is or can be *inherently* moral or immoral. Show me "bad" without referencing something else/making a comparison. No physical objects or concepts, just show me "bad" (if the response is to give up and post a meme I ask for a good one).

"Circle" is a word we use to constrain anticipation about properties of something. You can describe it in abstract terms, but you can also just show me a circle. It's not a good analogy.

And then, because of that, not allowing me to say that an orange is more circular than a horse. I mean, fine, it's just a definition. But it's still true.

Then the horse steps on the orange and it's not true any longer. Heck oranges aren't even *inherently* orange color, they have to grow and ripen first.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Even if a circle is a human concept (sort of), you can come up with objective rules to define what a circle is. Can't really do that with morals.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, we can come up with objective rules. I cannot show you a circle, they cannot physically exist in the real world.

But the acceptance of the objective rule is a subjective task. Who gave you the authority to tell me what a circle is??? It's a stupid question, I should just accept that we've defined Circle. The universe will never contain a circle. And all of hydrogen will evaporate with that being true.

We derived the mathematical concept of a circle after being exposed to things that were just circle like in nature

The concept of a circle is a concept that can be shared by the majority of people with our cognitive structure. That's all it is.

Who gave you the authority to tell me that human on human genocide is wrong??? Right, sigh. I mean, I see what you're saying. But it's not a huge insight to say that morality is defined by people.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Who gave you the authority to tell me that human on human genocide is wrong??? Right, sigh. I mean, I see what you're saying. But it's not a huge insight to say that morality is defined by people.

It shouldn't have to be an insight at all. Yet often in discussions about morality people start sneaking (or overtly placing) arguments from a framework where there is such a thing as morality derived from outside humans...and that these are supposed to hold more weight rather than basically none in terms of the discussion.

Going back to your hypothetical, I reject your assertion "there is always a should". From where comes this should-ness? Since your hypothetical doesn't give precise long-ranging consequences I'm still in favor of the person opting to kill 6+ murderers, all else being equal. If we assume some magic story where future deterrence is known for-a-fact higher if defender just rolls over and allows himself to die and he KNOWS that then it's different.

 

[El_Machinae]

Going back to your hypothetical, I reject your assertion "there is always a should". From where comes this should-ness? Since your hypothetical doesn't give precise long-ranging consequences I'm still in favor of the person opting to kill 6+ murderers, all else being equal. If we assume some magic story where future deterrence is known for-a-fact higher if defender just rolls over and allows himself to die and he KNOWS that then it's different.

There is always a 'should', you provided them yourself in the hypothetical. People always have an instinct of 'should'. You created a statement of predicted outcomes, and then recommended a course of action. The only thing that I did was point out that there was a greater spread of predicted outcomes than you had initially presented. If the hypothetical (not a 'magical story', that's condescending. please don't do that. hypotheticals are hypotheticals) gave you more information about outcomes, you would change your 'should'.

The reason why I presented the hypothetical is that people have different philosophies. We can create scenarios where 98% of people agree to the 'should'. We can create scenarios where 90% of people agree. Some moral questions are just unanswerable by human consensus. Some are, but it takes awhile to figure out why people are disagreeing.

The trolley problem, again, presents a moral conundrum. "Is it more important to not cause a death? Or is it more important to not allow more deaths?" We're not sure. But, if we're in the union voting on the policy the operator should follow (before we're randomly assigned to the work crew that day), it's easy-peasy. We know which policy is better.

The arguments about definitions aren't all that useful. Something is either more circular or its not. But the only reason why that's true is because we just both agree on what a 'circle' is. In moral philosophy, we just say "X is good according to such-and-such paradigm". The person who interrupts every conversation about "that's only a circle if you're thinking in terms of a non-real Euclidean plane" is just tiring. I mean, it's a valuable insight, but only if you really think that other people don't know it AND that it matters.

 

[Lexicus]

The arguments about definitions aren't all that useful. Something is either more circular or its not. But the only reason why that's true is because we just both agree on what a 'circle' is. In moral philosophy, we just say "X is good according to such-and-such paradigm". The person who interrupts every conversation about "that's only a circle if you're thinking in terms of a non-real Euclidean plane" is just tiring. I mean, it's a valuable insight, but only if you really think that other people don't know it AND that it matters.

This is a really good analogy. And 90% of the time people who do this are actually just saying "my position is indefensible because it's based on convenience rather than moral reasoning, so I'm just going to repeat the mantra of moral relativism 101 and hope no one notices"

 

[Berzerker]

Is there some logic that prevents extending that to the preemptive extermination of everyone else, in self defense? Gun ownership doesn't make you more safe, it just makes people who refuse to be rational feel more safe, while making them and everyone else actually less safe. So why stop there? As long as we are allowing their erroneous feelings to impact everyone, why shouldn't we give them the feeling of security that would come from having no threats? You can't just say that exterminating everyone else violates the rights of the others, because you are already allowing them to massage their feelings through putting everyone else at risk.

So, an arbitrary limit? You can put everyone at risk by having guns that make you feel safer, but you can't have a bomb vest. Why not? Why can't I have a vest linked to my heartbeat that will take down several city blocks if it stops so that I know everyone around me has a strong self interest in doing me no harm? That would make me feel really safe. It puts them at greater risk, but so did letting me have a gun, so why not? Why a gun and not a tank?

Criminals make us less safe, and if one breaks into your home you will be looking for a weapon. So we're not debating if you have the right but what weapons we should be allowed to use in self defense. Dont bring a knife to a gun fight. We cant stop drugs so how will we stop a black market in guns? The war on guns will make us less safe too. Anyway, thats where gun rights come from. We can debate what weapons people should be able to use but removing guns from the options takes away an equalizer for the weak and favors the powerful. As for bomb vests, they kill indiscriminately. Self defense is a right against an attacker, not the innocent.

Suppose we agree that I own myself. I'm even a partial owner of our society.

Why is your insistence on bringing a gun into our society greater than my insistence that we not? I don't agree that your gun makes me safer, and so I'm not allowing you to bring it into a place that I own.

You are insisting that I have to tolerate unsafe things. But your claim on what I must tolerate is equal to mine

I would suspect that the claim against preemptive murder is just the Axiom that people own their own lives.

It's a stance that I mostly hold myself, which is why I run into problems when discussing third trimester abortion, animals of certain levels of sentience, and robbing from Future people

You have a voice when guns are used on land you co-own just as you can have speed limits for cars, but you dont own the cars, the guns or the homes of people... So your argument is a gun in my home makes you less safe. Maybe, then so does my car, and so does my use of electricity... Hell, my existence makes you less safe. Can I be denied my right to live along with everyone else you consider a threat?

I understand the argument you're making, but its based in part on faulty data. We dont know how many times guns make us safer because their deterrent effect often goes undetected. Common sense tells us criminals will try to avoid people with guns which makes the people without guns less safe. When Antifa shows up at other people's protests they dont attack the ones with guns.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

Criminals make us less safe, and if one breaks into your home you will be looking for a weapon. So we're not debating if you have the right but what weapons we should be allowed to use in self defense. Dont bring a knife to a gun fight. We cant stop drugs how will we stop a black market in guns? The war on guns will make us less safe too. Anyway, thats where gun rights come from. We can debate what weapons people should be able to use but removing guns from the options takes away an equalizer for the weak and favors the powerful. As for bomb vests, they kill indiscriminately. Self defense is a right against an attacker, not the innocent.

You have a voice when guns are used on land you co-own just as you can have speed limits for cars, but you dont own the cars, the guns or the homes of people. So your argument is a gun in my home makes you less safe. Maybe, then so does my car, and so does my use of electricity. Hell, my existence makes you less safe. Can I be denied my right to live along with everyone else you consider a threat?

I understand the argument you're making, but its based in part on faulty data. We dont know how many times guns make us safer because their deterrent effect often goes undetected. Common sense tells us criminals will try to avoid people with guns which makes the people without guns less safe. When Antifa shows up at other people's protests they dont attack the ones with guns.

You are saying two different things whenever it is convenient which makes it impossible to show the flaws in your reasoning. You keep switching between

1.) It doesn't matter if guns make us more safe or not, because they must be legal as part of your right to self defence.
2.) Guns make us safer.

When people push back on (1), and point out this should apply to tanks or bomb vests, you fall back to (2) and argue that those other things would be too dangerous an kill indiscriminately. When people point out that guns do this as well, you fall back on (1) and again claim it's your right and the data doesn't matter.

So yeah, stop doing that.

 

[Lexicus]

So yeah, stop doing that.

Gun control debates are a great tool to use to show people how reason is used to bolster conclusions that are arrived at by intuition, before reasoning takes place.

Bottom line is these people are fully invested in the worldview promoted by gun marketing using all the tools of the modern science of public relations (aren't we glad we have all the trappings of modern civilization and Progress!), and it's unlikely that even accidentally shooting their own children will change their minds about guns. They might fail the guns but the guns can never fail.

 

[El_Machinae]

I already acknowledged that the gun that is already in your possession, legally, is a really good point. Push comes to shove, I would be willing to concede the idea that we should not take guns from people who already legally own them. We can call it the privilege of getting the guns and having shown to be reasonable with them.

But the acquisition, and transport, of guns within our shared Society then become a separate issue. Why should I consent to that? I certainly could, but I also consider it to be a privilege. You insist that you have the right to carry a gun in my Society. I say it's a privilege. Your ability to control my Society is more important than my abilities to control my Society?

I will also point out that I have never been robbed in my house while wearing a bomb vest. Despite this, and despite the fact that I have the right to self-defense, I don't think it is a good idea to allow the acquisition in transport of bomb vest paraphernalia in our society. That said, given certain restrictions and standards, it seems that I will allow some people the privilege of doing so.

The error is insisting that gun ownership is a right. It's a privilege. Only a small handful of Americans think that gun ownership is a right. We know this, because the majority of people who claim to support the Second Amendment were also in favor of disarming the Iraqi people after the invasion.

You might be in the severe minority that actually believe it's a right. But you should also realize that, given how severely you are outnumbered by reasonable people, your argument doesn't resonate

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You are saying two different things whenever it is convenient which makes it impossible to show the flaws in your reasoning. You keep switching between

1.) It doesn't matter if guns make us more safe or not, because they must be legal as part of your right to self defence.
2.) Guns make us safer.

When people push back on (1), and point out this should apply to tanks or bomb vests, you fall back to (2) and argue that those other things would be too dangerous an kill indiscriminately. When people point out that guns do this as well, you fall back on (1) and again claim it's your right and the data doesn't matter.

So yeah, stop doing that.

Very well simplified exposition on the bad faith argument style. I'd give long odds against it making any difference in this case, but a good effort.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

Gun control debates are a great tool to use to show people how reason is used to bolster conclusions that are arrived at by intuition, before reasoning takes place.

Bottom line is these people are fully invested in the worldview promoted by gun marketing using all the tools of the modern science of public relations (aren't we glad we have all the trappings of modern civilization and Progress!), and it's unlikely that even accidentally shooting their own children will change their minds about guns. They might fail the guns but the guns can never fail.

Yeah, guns are a funny one. People really don't want to subject themselves to the data, because they know the empirical evidence isn't in their favour. But they also realize why it would be really bad for society if everyone had their own personal tank. So their first principal of "freedom > safety" clearly falls apart with the tank counter point, but they also can't use the "for the greater good" argument since that is in contradiction to their entire philosophy.

So what is left for hardcore libertarian to do? Claim, as a fact, without a shred of evidence, that in a free society no one would even want to own a tank, for, reasons.

 

[EgonSpengler]

So what is left for hardcore libertarian to do? Claim, as a fact, without a shred of evidence, that in a free society no one would even want to own a tank, for, reasons.

I think the hardcore libertarian might say that everyone should be free to own a tank, but that we shouldn't worry about tanks appearing everywhere because they're too expensive to buy and maintain. The free market would constrain the proliferation of tanks for us. But then my question would be, "So only rich people will have tanks?" Admittedly, I'm not a libertarian and don't really understand it. A friend who loathes libertarianism would say that libertarians don't really understand it, either. I don't know if he's right, but in a corner of my mind, I do imagine that Somalia under Mohammad Aidid is an illustration of what fully-realized libertarianism would look like. Maybe that was anarchism.