The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[TheMeInTeam]

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'.

In this case the "should-ness" is a judgment I'm making, resulting from whatever my brain is doing. Absent a human making the choice there is no "shouldness". And note that this is why I hold that others in the same scenario don't have some "moral obligation" to choose as I would choose. I'm making a case based on what's likely to produce the best outcome per my utility function. I am not making a case that others should necessarily adopt my utility function (though I would require sound reasoning to consider altering mine in response also).

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.

We're not JUST arguing definitions here though. There are hints of different preferred outcomes outright, even in the scope of 100% human-derived morality.

All other consequences beyond the scenario being set equal, some people would prefer the victim to die w/o killing, and others would prefer he take as many attackers with him as possible. I place myself among the latter, and I'm not alone. However, there are people who won't pick this way too, I doubt it's anywhere near a 90-10 split or such.

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"

Under moral relativism, people are still responsible for their choices. More so in fact, as there's no higher authority supposedly guiding the choices made. What matters are the outcomes of choices. I personally consider the attackers in his example evil by my own standards, and if I'm holding the gun with only the knowledge he gave in initial hypothetical 6 people are getting shot, or at least shot at.

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.

I don't like either of these arguments, though I also don't like the "arguments" against people owning guns. The onus is to provide reasoning guns specifically should be banned...or if some subset of them which subset and why. In terms of laws that get passed this always turns into a joke, more a kneejerk "do something" rather than something with meaningful consequences.

It's true that the 2nd amendment's scope implies people today should be allowed to purchase tanks and missiles. It has already been compromised in that regard, and reasonably so...weapons of that nature simply didn't exist back then. I don't think cannons were illegal for private ownership back then either? Back then, the difference between a random guy with a gun and a soldier wasn't insignificant, but it wasn't the incomparable rift it is today.

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?"

Best I can tell, this was the original implication, just like you could have cannons or even a ship with military capability as a private citizen back then (at least, I've not found anything documented that would make such illegal back then).

A tank isn't a good example though. The libertarian argument would largely hold up for that one; they're sufficiently expensive to buy and maintain and are not trivial to use effectively by oneself; this is not a viable tool for shooting up a club. All this for something that only barely outperforms a car when it comes to going on a killing spree in a crowded area, and would get a lot more attention much sooner.

Better examples would be explosives, large scale capability to produce toxic gas, or weapons like RPGs which are expensive, but not so prohibitive so as to be "top-1% only" and easier to use/conceal until use. Grenades would be an issue too probably, though I think some terrorists/mass murder attacks have involved similar already.

No way a typical person would be getting their hands on military grade aircraft or something, even if it were legal to do so freely.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't want to knock the commitment. I've seen 2A advocates think that everyone should be allowed to own anti-aircraft guns. I've seen them actually get upset that felons and Iraqis are disarmed. They're deontologists, committed to the idea the freedom is more important than the damage. Or, that the damage from restricting the freedom is more important than the damage from allowing it. And we are all deontologists in our own way, depending. I happen to really appreciate the idea of 'consent'.

The fact that a murderer has implicitly and explicitly consented to the idea "the strong should be allowed to kill the weak for personal benefit" means that they've consented to the Death Penalty. This is entirely a framing issue for me, but it's an important one. If forced to defend it, I can become more articulate or obstinate. I might convince or repel. But I know that it's still being founded on the idea of 'consent' and that I value that moral good in my own spectrum.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't want to knock the commitment. I've seen 2A advocates think that everyone should be allowed to own anti-aircraft guns. I've seen them actually get upset that felons and Iraqis are disarmed. They're deontologists, committed to the idea the freedom is more important than the damage.

It's actually not easy to picture what this looks like. I don't think any modern country allows this level of arming for private citizens do they? I'm legit curious what such a society would look like. I suspect not too different though, guns are popular for crime because they're relatively easy to use and access. Even if legal, if you picture the steps you'd have to go through to actually purchase and transport an anti-aircraft gun to your house it would be expensive and inconvenient...and if you ever shot it at something other than birds you'd probably have things shooting back before long.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

Under moral relativism, people are still responsible for their choices. More so in fact, as there's no higher authority supposedly guiding the choices made. What matters are the outcomes of choices. I personally consider the attackers in his example evil by my own standards, and if I'm holding the gun with only the knowledge he gave in initial hypothetical 6 people are getting shot, or at least shot at.

This was very interesting. You went from moral relativism to consequentialism to deontology without missing a beat!

Why would consequentialism hold under moral relativism? There are many flavors of moral relativism, but in general it's not going to be compatible with consequentialism. One asserts there is no objective standard to judge the morality of different cultures, the other asserts there is.

Secondly, if what matters are the outcomes of choices, then how is six bodies instead of one justifiable? Because they are evil you say, by what standard are they evil? Certainly not meerly by the standard of "outcomes of choices". If that was the standard, it would seem you are the evil one.

 

[Lexicus]

Under moral relativism, people are still responsible for their choices. More so in fact, as there's no higher authority supposedly guiding the choices made. What matters are the outcomes of choices. I personally consider the attackers in his example evil by my own standards, and if I'm holding the gun with only the knowledge he gave in initial hypothetical 6 people are getting shot, or at least shot at.

What does "under moral relativism" mean? "Moral relativism" refers to either the observation that morality is relative (e.g. between different cultures, but two people from the same culture can also disagree about morality) or a deeper point that morality should be relative, that "one size does not fit all" and that universal morality is either impossible or undesirable. What we are talking here is upstream of whether the consequences or or some quality such as "justice" determines whether actions are right or wrong: we are talking about the definition and construction of "right" and "wrong" themselves.

I'm legit curious what such a society would look like.

Just look at early medieval Europe for a society in which military-grade weaponry is possessed by much of the population.

 

[Berzerker]

*sigh* You said: 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.

Here's what you said:

Existence itself establishes no moral claims whatsoever. This whole claim you're making... that "existence" bestows inherent rights is a poor argument, and I reject it.

That was the context for my response:

Its the argument in the Declaration of Independence. Do you have a moral claim to defend yourself from a stranger attacking you? If a 3rd party intervened to stop the fight, would you 'claim the moral high ground' by accusing the stranger of attacking you or would you ask the 3rd party how they felt about self defense first?"

Do you see anything in there about the Christian God or Moses and Abraham? "Its the argument in the Declaration of Independence" refers to your comment about inherent rights, ie inalienable rights. That is the argument in the Declaration of Independence. Period! You jumped from that to their use of the word 'creator' as the source or cause of existence and then to various religions and their gods. So instead of debating if our rights stem from existence you want me to talk about a mis-translated Commandment.

Jefferson edited the NT removing the supernatural leaving the moral teachings, so he didn't believe in a personal God who writes books and performs magic tricks. The deists believed in cause and effect, existence was the effect, therefore it had a cause and that was their creator. You should read what some of those men said about the OT and its God, they were not fans. I'm required to defend my belief rights come from existence, the canard or red herring is requiring me to defend Moses' beliefs.

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.

Rights are moral claims against other people, not lions. The zookeepers shot it to save your life, not your right to life. They didn't kill the lion because it was acting immorally, eating other things is what lions (and us) do. If you see someone get attacked and intervene, you will first make a moral judgement about right and wrong - who appears to occupy the moral high ground. Murderers dont have the right to kill people, not with their bare hands, not with a knife or gun, and not with a lion.

citation needed
citation needed

I cite you as our representative. If somebody attacks you and you defend your self, you will do so from the moral high ground, you have the inherent right. Integral to that moral high ground is the 'fact' you are an individual who owns them self, the attacker does not own you. Thats why slavery was called 'man stealing' by abolitionists. But if rights dont exist until society says so, slavery wasn't immoral until it was abolished. Is that your position?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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.

Sorry, I'm not sure what side of this debate you're actually on. No-one gave me or anyone the authority to say that genocide is wrong, that's the entire point. It's subjective, not objective. Unlike a circle.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

Are you saying someone did give you the authority to say what a circle is?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Are you saying someone did give you the authority to say what a circle is?

Euclid, maybe.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Are you saying someone did give you the authority to say what a circle is?

No. Someone gave me the authority to say that a circle is a moral evil.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No. Someone gave me the authority to say that a circle is a moral evil.

I thought circles were a moral good, and the moral evil was a pentagon.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I thought circles were a moral good, and the moral evil was a pentagon.

pentagram

 

[Timsup2nothin]

pentagram

If a polygon has five sides it is a pentagon. That's more of an 'apples to apples' thing with a circle.

 

[cardgame]

Did you mean the, tim?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Pentagon......Pentagram.....Coincidence? I think not!

 

[Berzerker]

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.

I didn't say either of those and I dont know why what you bolded is contradictory. If there are flaws it shouldn't be impossible to show them. My response to bomb vests was not guns make us safer, I said bomb vests kill the innocent. The right of self defense is a moral claim and applies to defending against an attacker, you guys are changing that to bomb vests and nukes which kill indiscriminately. We arm cops with guns, are you really going to conflate them with bomb vests and nukes?

And I didn't say the data doesn't matter or guns make us safer, I said the argument they make us less safe is based on incomplete data. Some of that gap in our knowledge can be filled in by interviewing criminals, the consensus is they prefer attacking someone who is unarmed, someone weak. So guns might make the owners safer and they empower the weak by giving them an equalizer. But there's more violence, so are we safer? No, we've been waging a drug war for decades.

We've been destroying 'civil society' for 50 years and then we wonder why there's so much crime. As crime goes up, safety goes down and the demand for guns goes up. Thats how we get more police, more interference in our lives, more jails, and more violence. We denied people the right to ingest what they want (drugs) and then the violence created by our drug war leads to denying the right to a gun for self defense. I dont blame gun owners for that, I blame the people responsible for the drug war. Maybe Democrats and Republicans shouldn't be allowed to vote, they've been making us less safe. I'm skeptical when they tell us we need to sacrifice more rights to solve the problem created by their last failed solution to a problem.

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.

People were using weapons for self defense long before modern civilization, why would you attribute their motives to modern marketing tactics?

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?

The right is owning a gun, the privilege is carrying it around in 'your' society.

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

If true, so what? Rights dont come from the majority and governments are in the habit of violating rights, especially when they invade other countries.

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.

You're gonna start another flame war in this thread? And you're lecturing me about bad faith arguments after equating a gun for self defense with a bomb vest?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

we are talking about the definition and construction of "right" and "wrong" themselves.

Yes, and the outcomes resulting from choices made using those constructions are our responsibility. I don't care how "right" something seems, it should still trace to an outcome consistent with that person's utility function.

In the case of someone who truly considers harm to be "right" (both desiring it as an outcome and pursuing it), these differences can't be reconciled. A psychotic serial killer who can act w/o remorse would be a classic example, but not the only one.

Just look at early medieval Europe for a society in which military-grade weaponry is possessed by much of the population.

No, medieval weaponry did not afford the capacity for a single person to be so destructive. In those times a guy with a sword might hack a dozen or so people down at most before he's killed on the spot or sent to the chopping block. In modern times hundreds is possible.

It's not exactly an imminent threat right now most likely, but this thought experiment is worth having. I don't want humanity to end up with the "gray goo" ending (or something functionally similar) when that kind of destructive potential can be concentrated into a small enough percentage of the world's people to be feasible. Who gets to control that button? Where's the second amendment then, when you could have millions of guns and the manpower willing to use them and it's worth nothing?

I don't have a good answer for that. It does suggest that the second amendment's intention vs what it's really doing is worth a look, rather than pulling a political rope back and forth based on whatever the most recent actually-covered-in-news mass killing used. The fact of the matter is that the second amendment's intention has been dead for at least decades (threat of populace resisting government oppression with military force). Compare recent discussion to the 1939 ruling of "arms that are part of regular military use". Now just possessing a "bump stock" is illegal, which itself is below standard military capabilities.

The purpose is gone already, and I don't see how it could be sustained with modern weapon capability. I don't know what could replace that functionality.

Why would consequentialism hold under moral relativism? There are many flavors of moral relativism, but in general it's not going to be compatible with consequentialism. One asserts there is no objective standard to judge the morality of different cultures, the other asserts there is.

I'm not saying to judge between cultures based on an objective standard. I'm saying to judge how effectively a particular culture reaches its own purported standards.

If X culture says Y thing is desirable, then in the context of X choices that actually lead to decreases in Y should be considered "bad". Y usually has both components that can be objectively measured and components that are subjective.

People can and do judge between cultures based on how compatible they are with their own, and this is reasonably done by how similarly they attain desirable outcomes relative to each other.

Because they are evil you say, by what standard are they evil? Certainly not meerly by the standard of "outcomes of choices". If that was the standard, it would seem you are the evil one.

By my own standard. And maybe to some other people I am indeed the evil one. Part of me could even accept that I'd be an evil person killing other evil people as a conclusion from an outside observer. In this particular scenario, I don't care. I'll act accordingly to my take on the situation. If you want to change my mind, change the allegedly known outcomes.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Did you mean the, tim?

Nope. I'm sure that was just a coincidence.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

I didn't say either of those and I dont know why what you bolded is contradictory. If there are flaws it shouldn't be impossible to show them. My response to bomb vests was not guns make us safer, I said bomb vests kill the innocent.

Oh, well in that case, so do guns. So they should be illegal too then.

The right of self defense is a moral claim and applies to defending against an attacker, you guys are changing that to bomb vests and nukes which kill indiscriminately. We arm cops with guns, are you really going to conflate them with bomb vests and nukes?

You can use tanks and honestly even bomb to defend against an attacker. Just because it isn't your choice shouldn't matter. Your counter argument that they cause collateral damage or kill the innocent obviously applies to guns too. The difference is degree, not kind.

The question is what right do you have to deny someone a tank for the purposes of self defense. There is no questions that guns can kill indiscriminately and kill the innocent too, so your arguments are refuting your own position. A tank is just a weapon that can be used to defend yourself. Against certain attackers it would really come in handy. As would a bomb.

 

[Berzerker]

Oh, well in that case, so do guns. So they should be illegal too then.

So do cops, should they be illegal? Hell, people kill innocent people. Wouldn't your argument mean no one has a right to live? Do you think people have the right to self defense and what weapons if any would you allow them to use?

You can use tanks and honestly even bomb to defend against an attacker. Just because it isn't your choice shouldn't matter. Your counter argument that they cause collateral damage or kill the innocent obviously applies to guns too. The difference is degree, not kind.

The question is what right do you have to deny someone a tank for the purposes of self defense. There is no questions that guns can kill indiscriminately and kill the innocent too, so your arguments are refuting your own position. A tank is just a weapon that can be used to defend yourself. Against certain attackers it would really come in handy. As would a bomb.

Guns are used all the time without killing innocent people. How are you going to defend yourself with a tank or bomb vest?