The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Manfred Belheim]

Sit inside the tank?

 

[Estebonrober]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/us/politics/nra-domestic-violence-congress.html

Reasonable legislation restricting access to firearms temporarily to people convicted of domestic abuse. NRA opposes obviously, their women supporters just do what their men tell them.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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

If owning a gun is a natural right because it's an extension of your natural right to self defence, then how is being able to carry it around also not a right? You can't really defend yourself with it if you're not in posession of it. I guess the clue was in the "your society" bit, but how are you recognising the authority of any society to curtail a natural, immutable "god given" right?

 

[El_Machinae]

When I brought bomb vests into the discussion, it wasn't to say that guns should be illegal

I can imagine good reasons why a person would need access to bomb vests. Off of the top of my head, they are anti-terrorist instructor and need to access the bomb vest paraphernalia in the Vault of the school.

But, that access is a privilege. Not a right. Driving is a privilege, even though I believe that access to public spaces is a right.

I've never said guns should be illegal, I just disagreed that access and transport of guns in public spaces should be a privilege. Different countries will experiment with the way they enact this privilege, and the consequences will show which countries did it best

 

[Sommerswerd]

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

Circles aren't polygons

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

This. Exactly this.

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.

Let the church say Amen

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

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?

Lol, it was you who suggested bomb vests and tanks should be illegal because they "kill the innocent". That was your position, not mine. I was simply pointing out that it would apply to guns as well.

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

Tanks are used all the time without killing innocent people too. How are you going to defend yourself against attackers who have a tank with only a gun? You can't. You need yourself some kind of powerful explosive or tank otherwise you are screwed. So I'll ask again, why should someone be denied the right defend themselves with a tank? So far your answers have been that they kill the innocent or kill indiscriminately, you do understand why that applies to guns too, right?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A gigantic majority of bullets fired do not hit their intended target. Law enforcement has almost as many shooting incidents where they have to justify a bystander being hit by a stray bullet as they have where they have to justify shooting someone intentionally. There are far more gun deaths ruled accidental than there are ruled as murders.

 

[El_Machinae]

"How are you going to defend yourself with a bomb vest?"

Dude. Statistics. I can find stories of people who were mugged and had their open-carry pistol stolen. Find me ONE story of a person wearing a bomb vest getting mugged.

I mean, I'm not just being silly (even though, obviously I am). A reasonable portion of deterrence is convincing your attacker you're willing to take him with you. If you think that bomb vests wouldn't have a deterrent effect, you're just ... wrong.

 

[Lexicus]

I mean, I'm not just being silly (even though, obviously I am). A reasonable portion of deterrence is convincing your attacker you're willing to take him with you. If you think that bomb vests wouldn't have a deterrent effect, you're just ... wrong.

Wear a bomb vest and over that a sandwich board with "I AM HOLDING A DEAD MAN'S SWITCH" printed in six-inch red letters.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

But seriously guys, what you don't understand is bomb vests kill the innocent. That is what makes them so different from guns. Like, when has a gun ever killed the innocent? Just think about it.

 

[Lexicus]

But seriously guys, what you don't understand is bomb vests kill the innocent. That is what makes them so different from guns. Like, when has a gun ever killed the innocent? Just think about it.

Devil's advocate for a moment: guns kill the innocent when they're misused. Explosive vests are indiscriminate so even when using them as intended they will kill bystanders or whatever.

Now channeling @El_Machinae for a moment: that may not matter much to someone who only cares about the consequences - guns kill innocent people, period, and that's the end of the story, but to someone using deontological ethics the use vs misuse distinction is going to be more important.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

A gigantic majority of bullets fired do not hit their intended target. Law enforcement has almost as many shooting incidents where they have to justify a bystander being hit by a stray bullet as they have where they have to justify shooting someone intentionally. There are far more gun deaths ruled accidental than there are ruled as murders.

Is that really true, or are those statistics factoring suicides as "accidental"? Suicidal gun deaths are more prevalent than homicides by a fair margin, however discerning whether they were intentional could be in doubt (accidental vs intentional self-shot, absent a note or known context). Suicides are also less likely to miss and cause collateral, though it still isn't impossible.

They're a huge problem, though taking away guns is probably the wrong approach to them compared to finding a way to remove the motivation for suicide.

Or is it just the case that in terms of gun deaths suicides > accidental deaths > homicides in terms of frequency?

Devil's advocate for a moment: guns kill the innocent when they're misused. Explosive vests are indiscriminate so even when using them as intended they will kill bystanders or whatever.

That depends where they're used, and also on what the person using them considers to be "innocent".

 

[El_Machinae]

Bomb vests don't kill people, people who mug people kill people!
Also, there's nothing to say that a person who wears a bomb vest has to choose to use it if people are threatened. I don't shoot a mugger if there's a troope of Girl Guides behind her. We could even make it an offence if your bomb vest accidentally kills someone, though obviously the damages are taken out of your estate.

I appreciate that clarification, though. For me it was "either way, innocents get killed due to misuse. After that, it's just a question of numbers."

 

[Lexicus]

They're a huge problem, though taking away guns is probably the wrong approach to them compared to finding a way to remove the motivation for suicide.

This is the opposite of the truth. Availability of guns is the low-hanging fruit.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

Devil's advocate for a moment: guns kill the innocent when they're misused. Explosive vests are indiscriminate so even when using them as intended they will kill bystanders or whatever.

Now channeling @El_Machinae for a moment: that may not matter much to someone who only cares about the consequences - guns kill innocent people, period, and that's the end of the story, but to someone using deontological ethics the use vs misuse distinction is going to be more important.

Every responsible bomb vest owner knows not to set them off when there are innocent bystanders in the blast radius, and will only use them when surrounded by bad people. Just because some people don't know how to use them appropriately doesn't give you the authority to violate my natural rights.

 

[Farm Boy]

Access to public places is a pretty meaningless right without the easements and tools to move effectively. It's like not having the right at all.

Just because some people don't know how to use them appropriately doesn't give you the authority to violate my natural rights.

Sort of like booze, eh? Right to get effed up. ~Half of murders. ~Half of the murdered. Slightly less than half of those convicted of sexual offenses. Right to die with dignity when old and useless, but all those people who could still pay taxes and provide services.

So many inconvenient and expensive rights left to address.

 

[Lexicus]

Heh. Fair enough. I mean, I agree with you. But still...explosion is less discerning than a bullet that travels in, more or less, a straight line maybe with some ricochets.

 

[El_Machinae]

Access to public places is a pretty meaningless right without the easements and tools to move effectively. It's like not having the right at all.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

This is the opposite of the truth. Availability of guns is the low-hanging fruit.

Here's where I interject. I really don't have an opinion on which one is better. But we really can do both, and we really, really should be. A major cause of suffering in the 21st century will be mental illness. It's an all-hands-on-deck issue.

 

[Lexicus]

Here's where I interject. I really don't have an opinion on which one is better. But we really can do both, and we really, really should be. A major cause of suffering in the 21st century will be mental illness

Oh, I agree we should be doing both. Low-hanging fruit is low-hanging fruit though. It's clear to me that without doing anything else, taking away the guns would turn a lot of those suicides into failed suicide attempts. That's worthwhile.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

Heh. Fair enough. I mean, I agree with you. But still...explosion is less discerning than a bullet that travels in, more or less, a straight line maybe with some ricochets.

Yeah, I agree with this point. That is why I said before it's a difference of degree, not kind. Guns kill are more accurate, but they are still very dangerous and can be used to harm lots of people, both on purpose or accidentally.

Someone who is willing to concede that in the case of tanks or bomb vests public safety is more important than freedom, we can shift away from the argument about rights to an honest look at the evidence for guns.