• tim wood
    Because none of these atrocities have been realized.ep3265
    Yes, they have, they are. Not that they're all atrocities. They're part of the air we breathe, which is perhaps why you don't even recognize them.

    I don't really understand that question. I think it's a human right, as do most Americans. I think it works because of the standards of living in America.ep3265
    I was thinking civil right or natural right. Human right... what's that?

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.ep3265
    Three words: individual, person, people. They're not the same; they don't mean the same thing. And are you a well-regulated militia?

    Um, yes it is. Gun violence is by definition a crime.ep3265
    You must be referring to crimes which involved gun violence. I was referring to the violence that a gun causes, whether in a crime or not. You might want to take some time and research the meaning of the word "crime."

    The news media over blows things out of proportion to make certain crimes seem more egregious than they really are, and even though they are very sad and devastating, it's our price for freedom.ep3265
    More egregious than they really are? And it's not a price we pay for freedom; it's the price we all pay, some more than others, for a lunatic license.

    Instead of arguing this anymore - and I'm not sure anyone else is interested - try by yourseof arguing the other side. At present, I think the fog around your thinking prevents you from even seeing it, and certainly interferes with your thinking. That is, I suspect you're a victim, and you do not even know it.
  • ep3265
    Let me ask you a question, is more freedom worse than less freedom? If you answered no, then you must be able to protect yourself against threats to freedom. I can't understand the logic of the far-left to think that guns should be banned, and still think colored people are wrongfully being incarcerated. If you answered yes, then I think your previous argument is now concise. I'd also like to point out the fact that London's crime rate is now higher than New York's, even though guns and even knives are now banned. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/03/londons-murder-rate-higher-than-new-york-citys/480860002/

    The left always brings up instances of countries where guns are banned and the crime rate is significantly lower than others. Well here's some conflicting evidence http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22288564

    Take a look at this chart:

    Homicide count in 2009

    Brazil 43,909
    Denmark 47
    Iceland 1
    UK 724
    US 15,241

    Iceland had ONE homicide. So there's clearly more at play here than banning firearms.
  • Baden

    The way you put it there it looks like Iceland has way less homicides than Denmark or especially the UK. So do Monaco and the Vatican I bet.

    But here are actual rates per 100,000 population (rates offering the only meaningful comparison) for more recent years:

    Iceland: 0.91 (2015)
    United Kingdom: 0.92 (2014)
    Denmark: 0.99 (2015)

    And the difference disappears. (All in the top 50 lowest for homicide rates).

    And the US?

    United States: 4.88 (2015)

    Down there at no.126 just behind that glorious bastion of freedom, Kazakhstan.

    +In Iceland (from your bbc source):

    "...acquiring a gun is not an easy process -steps to gun ownership include a medical examination and a written test.
    Police are unarmed, too. The only officers permitted to carry firearms are on a special force called the Viking Squad, and they are seldom called out."

    By all means, implement all that in the US and you might make some progress.
  • ep3265
    Well, I do submit to the fact that my Iceland source was an unfair comparison. However, if you look at the rates of homicides per state in the U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state . If you sort by gun murder rate, you can see that there's little correlation between gun ownership and gun murder rate. You'd expect there to be a larger gun murder rate in states with more relaxed gun laws, but there seems to be more at play here. So what is it exactly? It appears that some of the areas with the highest percent of gun ownership have the lowest gun murder rates. However, they also account for some of the highest gun murder rates. I find this very confusing.

    Something to think about, however, is how guns could stop potential homicides. The Texas church shooting was stopped by a bystander in the NRA, not the police or other authorities.

    I'm also all for more rigid background checks, however I disagree with most police officers being unarmed.

    But again, gun murder rates over the past few decades have overall been declining, so I see no problem that should be fixed as of now.
  • Baden

    It's not a straightforward picture, I agree, but I think someone posted a comparison graph earlier in the discussion that showed a strong correlation if not between gun ownership and reduced gun homicides at least between stricter gun laws and reduced homicides in the US state by state. I'll try to dig it up.

    It would be a good start to enact compulsory training. You need a license to drive a car, and so should you to carry a gun. Disarming the police wouldn't be practical at all as things stand admittedly but in a perfect world you could get there. Which means you won't. So, let's forget that one for now.

    But again, gun murder rates over the past few decades have overall been declining, so I see no problem that should be fixed as of now.ep3265

    If they could be declining faster then that's still a problem as in more people getting unnecessarily killed is always a problem regardless of the base comparison.
  • tim wood
    Let me ask you a question, is more freedom worse than less freedom?ep3265

    The question is meaningless absent a clear understanding - agreement - even if just a definition, of what freedom is. Give it a try and I'll be glad to answer. For starters, though, this: I fall in with a Kantian understanding of freedom as being free to do one's duty. If reason calls me to some action, and for some reason I cannot do it, then, to the degree constrained, I am not free.

    I'm guessing that you understand freedom to be the index by which you measure your ability to do what you want to do, when you want to do it. I invite you to consider this for a while. Often enough this latter "freedom" is no real freedom at all, but rather our urge to do what someone else has conned into wanting to do.

    I also see above you're having trouble breaking away from gun crime to the larger phenomenon of gun violence. By violence, I mean what a gun accomplishes and how it accomplishes it, when it is functioning as intended. Earlier in this thread (or maybe another) we had the example of a small child shooting another small child: clearly no crime involved - but do you maintain there was no violence?

    But until you engage with these thoughts discussion is just a football-like game of who can hit harder. Attempt to set aside your own advocacy and try to find a ground of truth. Defensiveness, whether aggressive or passive, usually blocks access to the truth.
  • ep3265
    I agree, I just see no viable option as of now. Perhaps making a gun training course necessary would be practical.
  • ep3265
    we had the example of a small child shooting another small child: clearly no crime involvedtim wood

    That is a crime, a juvenile and unintentional one, but still a crime. In my mind a crime is an act that is directly stated as unlawful. And I see nothing wrong with the opening of options, and calling that openness of options "freedom". Many people in America are overweight, and I praise God everyday we have the freedom to do something like that. Many of my coworkers smoke cigarettes, and I and my father smoke pipes. Are any of these things good for you? No. Should these particular acts be celebrated? Not really. Should we be thankful that we're allowed to do all of the right things, and all of the wrong things as well? Yes absolutely, because then your destiny is more so determined by your own actions (ignore hard determinism for a minute.)
  • tim wood
    Is it reasonable for you to smoke a pipe? Are you glad you smoke a pipe? If it happened that you didn't smoke a pipe, would you be persuaded to start out of a sense that you should? The idea is that likely it's not a free choice on your part, but instead a mild addiction to which you're subject. (I smoked a pipe for a while a long time ago.) What you're talking about is your ability to make what seems to you an unimpeded choice. But that's a long way from freedom.
  • ep3265
    Perhaps in your sense of the word freedom. I have not yet become addicted, therefore I smoke a pipe as a mild hobby.

    But really I feel to truly be free one must first restrict his or her actions to things that they find better themselves
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.