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. — andrewk

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. — 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.

Why not just admit you wrote something that made no sense? It's no big deal. We all do it quite frequently, especially me. — 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.

The admission wouldn't hamper your ability to continue arguing against gun control, should you wish to do so. — 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.

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. — S

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. — S

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. — 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?

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. — Christoffer

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.

I already told you the realistic route of action. Stop acting naive. — Christoffer

I am beginning to believe that "naive" is your word of the week. And I don't see how your route is realistic.

Philosophy of ethics and justice. — 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.

Have you ever met anyone outside of philosophy who can do a proper dialectic? — 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.

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? — 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?

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 — Christoffer

This does not qualify as proof of the statement you made.

Why do you think that philosophers have been gaining popularity as a hired consultant in many workplaces? — "Christoffer

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.

Philosophy is more about how you think about problems, not direct solutions to problems. — 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.

What's the point of hiring someone who has the answers to current problems if they cannot solve new ones further down the road? — 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.

I recommend that you study a bit more philosophy before you demand solutions in the way you do. — Christoffer

I have made no demands, I asked you how you would solve a problem and you have no answer.

You're acting like a child right now and it's probably not worth continuing this discussion when you seem incapable of being humble. — 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.

You know nothing about me, so who's actually sitting on a high horse, judging? — 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.

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. — Sir2u

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.

How can a question be naive? — Sir2u

Oh man, that's priceless. :lol:

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. — Sir2u

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? — Sir2u

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. — S

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.

Oh man, that's priceless. — 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.

I don't recall him saying anything about this hat which you mention. — 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.

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. — 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.

I would like to see those enforceable laws for which there is evidence of them working be put into the law books and enforced. — 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.

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. — 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.

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. — Sir2u

Yes, I did. Did you think about that 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. — 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.

Keep on look for the easter eggs, I left several here for you're enjoyment. — Sir2u

I don't spot them. Your a master at subtlety, you are.

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. — Sir2u

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.

It is not about beating and bullying others into submission and trying to force them into admitting that they are wrong. — Sir2u

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.

there was probably never any guns to get rid of — 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.

Yes, I did. Did you think about that before you typed and submitted it? — S

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.

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... — 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.

In short, act to make the conditions right, then act to change the law or the ways in which it is enforced or both. — S

Basically what I have been saying from the beginning, education first.

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. — Sir2u

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.

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. — Sir2u

The problem was more than that. Enforceable is not the same as enforced. I want the two together.

Basically what I have been saying from the beginning, education first. — Sir2u

And who do you think is arguing against that, if anyone?

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. — andrewk

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. — Sir2u

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. — Sir2u

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. — Sir2u

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. — 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.

I think he means the ratio of "good guys with guns to bad guys with guns". — 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.

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. — andrewk

Nit picking.

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

Why not just admit you wrote something that made no sense? — andrewk

You have still not answered the question either, another habit of our friend S. Why am I wrong?

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. — 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.

Ah, I see. So you were merely being pedantic,and your point was trivial — S

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. — S

Neither of those, you wrote something that did not make sense and I pointed it out to you.

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. — 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.

The problem was more than that. Enforceable is not the same as enforced. I want the two together. — 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.

And who do you think is arguing against that, if anyone? — 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.

Ahh, now I understand. — Sir2u

Do you?

You want a hundred percent guaranteed answer. — Sir2u

Didn't think so.

As far as I can see no one is. But no one has given any ideas about how to go about doing it either. — Sir2u

As far you can see, yes. Perhaps you can't see very far.

Didn't think so. — S

Did not think what? Please try not to write these cryptic one liners, Banno is the only one that can do that correctly.

Did not think what? Please try not to write these cryptic one liners, Banno is the only one that can do that correctly. — Sir2u

Pfft! That old goat probably can't even button up his shirt correctly.

Pfft! That old goat probably can't even button up his shirt correctly. — S

Still refusing to answer questions I see. But I guess it is because you don't have an answer. :roll:

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, and none of them related to the disputed claim about attendance at crime scenes.

Learn to read. — Sir2u

you do not understand English very well. — Sir2u

I took it for granted that you knew how to read. — Sir2u

Could you just remind me exactly what accusations you were making about attempted bullying?

My original statement stands until someone can prove it to be false. — 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.

Be careful using "that that" in sentences, S gets upset and pulls out his dictionary and some webpages about it. — Sir2u

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. — andrewk

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.

Could you just remind exactly what accusations you were making about attempted bullying? — andrewk

Where did I make any accusations, as I said I was only commenting on the purpose of the forum and your style.

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

It appears that it is actually not at all painful to admit that one is wrong sometimes. — andrewk

So explain to me why I am wrong and I will follow your example.

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. — unforeseen

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.

Still refusing to answer questions I see. But I guess it is because you don't have an answer. :roll: — Sir2u

Maybe you're asking the wrong questions. Maybe you're just not recognising the answers.

My question:

Did not think what? — Sir2u

Your answer:

Pfft! That old goat probably can't even button up his shirt correctly. — S

Nope, I don't think I missed anything. Unless of course you actually intended to answer that meaningless, senseless and complete idiotic.

An armed society is a normal society. Society without arms don’t last very long. — unforeseen

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.

Did not think what? — Sir2u

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?

This looks like trolling, — S

You don't know what that means. He spelled out what he thinks and why he thinks that way clearly.

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.

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? — S

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? — 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.