Comparing street crime to warfare is a false equivalency. But that said, I'm 100% certain that wars would be less deadly without guns (and other long-range weaponry).

And I would much rather have "the great equalizer" as ↪Outlander called it. — Tzeentch

Perhaps if we have a pistols-at-dawn duel, but that's not the reality. It's drive-by shootings, someone pulling a gun on you before you know what's happening, being shot at a distance and from behind, etc.

And according to this, "overwhelming evidence demonstrat[es] that firearms are not an effective means of self-defense."

UK and many other countries in Europe including my own are turning into shitholes. The sense of safety that once was is now just an illusion. People feel safe because they had the good fortune not to be confronted with reality, which is that if they cross paths with the wrong people the authorities can't and won't do a single thing. — Tzeentch

Also see this:

Seventy-eight per cent of people in England and Wales think that crime has gone up in the last few years, according to the latest survey. But the data on actual crime shows the exact opposite.

As of 2024, violence, burglary and car crime have been declining for 30 years and by close to 90%, according to the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) – our best indicator of true crime levels. Unlike police data, the CSEW is not subject to variations in reporting and recording.

The drop in violence includes domestic violence and other violence against women. Anti-social behaviour has similarly declined. While increased fraud and computer misuse now make up half of crime, this mainly reflects how far the rates of other crimes have fallen.

All high-income countries have experienced similar trends, and there is scientific consensus that the decline in crime is a real phenomenon.

I think you had to delete what you wrote because you could be arrested for it. I couldn’t imagine. — NOS4A2

I deleted it because in my haste I was putting words in your mouth, which may have been unwarranted. Perhaps you weren't referring to government tyranny but crime, like Tzeentch above.

If this is a reference to criminals then I'll repeat what I said to NOS4A2 before: I’d much prefer it if they don’t have access to guns, even if that means I don’t have access to guns either.

Many Americans see what is happening to the UK and it only reaffirms the reasons we should never give up our guns. — NOS4A2

What things?

In what world is "1 and 2 therefore not 1. 1 and 2. Therefore, not 1." a sensible or logical maneuver? It most certainly is not modus ponens so understood. — NotAristotle

The bottom line shows modus ponens. It doesn't matter what A and B mean:



Now replace B with ¬A. Only one line has both A → ¬A and A true, and on that line ¬A is also true. That's all it means for the argument to be valid.



However, two of the lines are removed by the laws of excluded middle (the top) and non-contradiction (the bottom)



That gives us:

A → ¬A
∴ ¬A

Or

A
∴ ¬(A → ¬A)


So the argument is unsound.

Is that so irrational in your eyes? Am I such a bad guy for holding such a sentiment? — Outlander

No, but the reality is that easy access to guns seems to lead to an increase in gun deaths, school shootings, etc.

So you have to ask; is it worth it? Charlie thought so. The British didn’t. I think we made the right call.

And in 30 years, we haven't changed our minds, even across party lines. Perhaps because we've seen what happens in the USA.

Okay. A school shooting (a few dozen dead kids) is bad. A war, my friend (a few million dead kids) is worse. There are no excuses or way to sideline or "talk around" that fact. Without a right or means to defend oneself from an oppressive government, the darkest desires which often control people imbued with the mindset to seek power over others, such becomes inevitable. And don't give me that "a rifle cannot defeat a military jet or drone" nonsense. Soldiers and police are people too who want to go home to their families who literally wake up each day knowing they prevent indiscriminate killing of their own countrymen. They're not going to do that and the average low-level enforcement (cops) will be less likely to.risk their lives over a clearly immoral order that would likely end in one or more of their own deaths.

Not to mention, societal collapse. Historically, basically all nations are "roving gangs" temporarily turned civil due to access to resources that belonged to other people. There are no good people left, for the most part. We're literally the worst of humanity, artificially propped up by violence and theft. That's all there is to it. Ticking time bombs waiting to go off. Of no purpose or value but what we delude ourselves into thinking. Meaning, an individual who chooses to live a private life without engaging in (basically forced and compulsory) social membership with strangers because "I don't want to die" (AKA fear) should have a right to reasonably defend himself from a group of marauders, something only possible with a semiautomatic (or higher) firearm. All current institutions and groups were ultimately based and established on the principle of fear. Fear is not solid ground. — Outlander

So you think frequent mass shootings at schools is a price worth paying because it's theoretically possible that society will collapse or that the government will become a tyranny and start executing innocent citizens?

I'm more of a realist. The UK has had strong gun control for almost 30 years, and nothing like that has happened. Compared to the USA I'd say we're much safer, have more rights, and actually hold our politicians to account.

But hey, if the zombie apocalypse happens then I'll eat my words (if I'm not already eating someone's flesh).

The UK does seem to be having a lot of machete and knife fights on city streets now though don't they. — Sir2u

Better that than guns.

Sorry to disillusion you about this, but the bad guys will always get weapons while weapons continue to exist. — Sir2u

And yet we haven't had a school shooting since strong gun control has been in place.

Why don't you trust other people to make the right decisions? — Outlander

I’ve seen what happens in the USA. It happened in Scotland in 1996, and it was that that brought in gun control here. We haven’t had a school shooting since.

There are crazies out there and people who hate you and wish death upon you because they don’t like what you say. — NOS4A2

And I’d much prefer it if they don’t have access to guns, even if that means I don’t have access to guns either.

I’m happy with the UK law on gun ownership. It’s not because I don’t believe in rights; it’s because I think that private gun ownership is too dangerous.

Everyone keeps mentioning this statement here and elsewhere, without citation. It’s an odd phenomenon because clearly it is not something that you all remember hearing or reading before his murder, assuming that you never followed his debates and conjured it from memory. I never heard it before but I’ve read it a bunch of times today. Was it passed around on Reddit or Bluesky or something in the wake of his assassination? — NOS4A2

https://x.com/Ronxyz00/status/1965872119604289791

Shooting at another school as well: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/09/10/us/at-least-2-students-shot-denver-area-high-school

The tragedy marks the 47th shooting that took place at a school in the United States so far this year — 24 of which were on college campuses and 23 on K-12 school grounds.

As an outsider to American gun culture, I think it's a shame that so many agree with Charlie Kirk, who once said "I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe."

Your position is anti-realist, while mine is pragmatic and operational. — JuanZu

These are not mutually exclusive. See scientific instrumentalism, which argues against scientific realism, claiming that scientific theories are neither true nor false but only useful/successful or not.

Also related to this is Stephen Hawkings’ model-dependent realism, which despite the name is a brand of instrumentalism.

We sometimes are wrong about how things are. How can this be possible if there is not a way that things are, independent of what we believe? — Banno

The wording here seems susceptible to equivocation.

Consider this argument:

P1. Only John's mind exists
P2. John believes that something other than his mind exists
C1. Therefore, idealism is true and John has a false belief

So that there is a "way things are, independent of belief" isn't necessarily that mind-independent objects exist.

You and I agree as to what is the case. How is that possible unless there is something external to us both on which to agree? — Banno

John and Jane both agree that God exists. It doesn't then follow that this agreement is made possible by the existence of some third thing, i.e. God. God might not exist.

I might seem dismissive and like I'm refusing to accept it — flannel jesus

I know that I've come across this way too and I don't mean to be.

I think adding "we all know the same thing" is something unnatural you added tbh. — flannel jesus

It's not.

Everyone knows that Arguments A and B are valid, because they are and everyone is a perfect logician.

I see 99 blue and 100 brown.

If I have blue eyes then every person with blue eyes sees 99 blue and 100 brown.
If I have brown eyes then every person with brown eyes sees 99 blue and 100 brown.

Everyone with my eye colour knows that either A1 or B1 is true.

Therefore everyone with my eye colour has come to the same conclusion: that if we all commit to the rule "if the $n$ people I see with $X$ eyes don't leave on day $n$ then I will leave on day $n + 1$ and declare that I have $X$ eyes" then everyone will leave the island having correctly declared their eye colour.

So I commit to this rule, as will they — and we leave the island having correctly declared our eye colour without anyone having to say anything.

but they all know they could, and they all, according to you, know exactly the same thing, so they all know they should subtract 95 and it would still work. — flannel jesus

They could subtract 95, but that would be arbitrary and so they wouldn't do it. Perfect logicians would stick to the non-arbitrary $n$.

Again, subtracting an arbitrary number from $n$ is arbitrary, and so perfect logicians wouldn't do it. But $n$ isn't arbitrary.

Yes but you don't know that every person will do that. Therein lies the problem — flannel jesus

Then we move on:

1. If I have blue eyes then every person with blue eyes knows exactly what I know
2. If I have brown eyes then every person with brown eyes knows exactly what I know

Either way, I know that everyone with my eye colour knows exactly what I know, and so knows that if every person commits to the rule: "if the $n$ people I see with $X$ eyes don't leave on day $n$ then I will leave on day $n + 1$ and declare that I have $X$ eyes" then everyone will leave the island having correctly declared their eye colour.

I put it to you that if perfect logicians know that everyone with their eye colour knows that committing to this rule will work then they will commit to this rule, and so they will leave the island having correctly declared their eye colour.

the point you were focusing on is it's validity. — flannel jesus

Yes, that's the first step: arguments A and B are valid.

The next step is: premises A2 and B2 are not arbitrary.

And the next step is: I know that either A1 or B1 is true.

Therefore, I know that if every person commits to the rule: "if the $n$ people I see with $X$ eyes don't leave on day $n$ then I will leave on day $n + 1$ and declare that I have $X$ eyes" then everyone will leave the island having correctly declared their eye colour.

but you also know it's a valid argument if you replace a2 and B2 with this premise: — flannel jesus

Yes, but adding or subtracting some arbitrary number to or from $n$ is arbitrary, whereas $n$ isn't arbitrary.

it might be — flannel jesus

It is.

it exists in a sea of equally valid and arbitrary premises. Suppose they replace 2 with committing to leave on X + 5 days. Or even X - 10 days. — flannel jesus

The premises aren't arbitrary. $n$ is the number of people seen with $X$ eyes. Adding or subtracting some arbitrary number to or from $n$ would be arbitrary though, which is why perfect logicians wouldn't do it.

Next we consider Argument B:

B1. There are 99 people with blue eyes and 101 people with brown eyes

B2. Every person commits to the rule: "if the $n$ people I see with $X$ eyes don't leave on day $n$ then I will leave on day $n + 1$ and declare that I have $X$ eyes"

B4. Therefore, from (B1) and (B2), every person with blues eyes commits to the rule: "if the 98 people I see with blue eyes don't leave on day 98 then I will leave on day 99 and declare that I have blue eyes"

B5. Therefore, from (B1) and (B2), every person with blues eyes commits to the rule: "if the 101 people I see with brown eyes don't leave on day 101 then I will leave on day 102 and declare that I have blue eyes"

B6. Therefore, from (B1) and (B2), every person with brown eyes commits to the rule: "if the 99 people I see with blue eyes don't leave on day 99 then I will leave on day 100 and declare that I have blue eyes"

B7. Therefore, from (B1) and (B2), every person with brown eyes commits to the rule: "if the 100 people I see with brown eyes don't leave on day 100 then I will leave on day 101 and declare that I have brown eyes"

B8. Therefore, from (B4), every person with blues eyes leaves on day 99 and declares that they have brown eyes

B9. Therefore, from (B7), every person with brown eyes leaves on day 101 and declares that they have brown eyes

This argument is also valid.

Now we get to the more interesting part. If we know that these arguments are valid then so too do our islanders. They might not yet know if any of the premises are true, but they do know that the arguments are valid.

For the next step let's start by considering a simplified version of the argument in the OP. The islanders arrive on the island together and are told that everyone has either blue or brown eyes — which is not the same as being told that there is at least one person with blue eyes and one person with brown eyes (it could be that everyone has blue eyes or everyone has brown eyes); it is only meant to dismiss the possibility that one's own eyes are green or red or pink or whatever.

I am an islander.

I know that Arguments A and B are valid.

I see 99 people with blue eyes and 100 people with brown eyes. Therefore I know that either A1 or B1 is true.

Therefore, I know that if every person commits to the rule: "if the $n$ people I see with $X$ eyes don't leave on day $n$ then I will leave on day $n + 1$ and declare that I have $X$ eyes" then everyone will leave the island having correctly declared their eye colour.

Seems like it requires mind reading to me for them to assume that about everyone else.

If they all could assume that about everyone else, sure, they get off the island. But they have no idea what everyone is committing to. — flannel jesus

I'm not assuming anything about anyone. I am simply saying that Argument A is valid.

Why would one of these blue eyed people think of that particular premise? — flannel jesus

I'm not saying that they are. I'm simply saying that the argument is valid.

What is it? — flannel jesus

It's a premise in the argument.

You're getting ahead of yourself. I'm not yet talking about what the people on the island see or know. I am simply saying that Argument A is valid.

I'll break it down even further if it helps:

A1. There are 100 people with blue eyes and 100 people with brown eyes

A2. Every person commits to the rule: "if the $n$ people I see with $X$ eyes don't leave on day $n$ then I will leave on day $n + 1$ and declare that I have $X$ eyes"

A4. Therefore, from (A1) and (A2), every person with brown eyes commits to the rule: "if the 99 people I see with brown eyes don't leave on day 99 then I will leave on day 100 and declare that I have brown eyes"

A5. Therefore, from (A1) and (A2), every person with brown eyes commits to the rule: "if the 100 people I see with blue eyes don't leave on day 100 then I will leave on day 101 and declare that I have blue eyes"

A6. Therefore, from (A1) and (A2), every person with blue eyes commits to the rule: "if the 99 people I see with blue eyes don't leave on day 99 then I will leave on day 100 and declare that I have blue eyes"

A7. Therefore, from (A1) and (A2), every person with blue eyes commits to the rule: "if the 100 people I see with brown eyes don't leave on day 100 then I will leave on day 101 and declare that I have brown eyes"

A8. Therefore, from (A4), every person with brown eyes leaves on day 100 and declares that they have brown eyes

A9. Therefore, from (A6), every person with blue eyes leaves on day 100 and declares that they have blue eyes

As shown above, the argument is valid when there are 100 people with brown eyes and 100 people with blue eyes but invalid when there is 1 person with brown eyes and 1 person with blue eyes.

Therefore, it's not the case that if the argument is valid when there are $m$ people with brown eyes and $m$ people with blue eyes then it is valid when there are $m - 1$ people with brown eyes and $m - 1$ people with blue eyes.

The number of each colour makes a difference.

if I don't agree with your conclusion we can't continue. Yeah okay buddy. I don't know why you want to talk to anybody lol. This is a philosophy forum. We can disagree with you, don't be weird about it. — flannel jesus

It's not my conclusion. It's one of my premises. And it's a premise that I demonstrated to be true here.

sure it follows — flannel jesus

No it doesn't.

If you can't accept that Argument A is valid then we can't continue.

I didn't say if it works for 100, it must work for 1. I said if it works for 100, it works for 99. If it doesn't work for 99, it can't work for 100. — flannel jesus

That doesn't follow.

This is valid, regardless of whether or not a comparable argument is valid for some other number:

A1. There are 100 people with blue eyes and 100 people with brown eyes
A2. Every person commits to the rule: if the $n$ people I see with $X$ eyes don't leave on day $n$ then I will leave on day $n + 1$ and declare that I have $X$ eyes
A3. Therefore, every person will leave and correctly declare their eye colour

It is impossible for A1 and A2 to be true but for A3 to be false.

Your insistence that if my reasoning works for 100 then it must work for 1, and so that if it doesn't work for 1 then it doesn't work for 100, is false.

Take these two arguments:

A1. There are 100 people with blue eyes and 100 people with brown eyes
A2. Every person commits to the rule: if the $n$ people I see with $X$ eyes don't leave on day $n$ then I will leave on day $n + 1$ and declare that I have $X$ eyes
A3. Therefore, every person will leave and correctly declare their eye colour

B1. There is 1 person with blue eyes and 1 person with brown eyes
B2. Every person commits to the rule: if the $n$ people I see with $X$ eyes don't leave on day $n$ then I will leave on day $n + 1$ and declare that I have $X$ eyes
B3. Therefore, every person will leave and correctly declare their eye colour

Argument A is valid even though argument B is invalid.

To show this:

If there are 100 people with brown eyes and 100 people with blue eyes then:

1. Every person with brown eyes commits to the rule: if the 99 people I see with brown eyes don't leave on day 99 then I will leave on day 100 and declare that I have brown eyes
2. Every person with brown eyes commits to the rule: if the 100 people I see with blue eyes don't leave on day 100 then I will leave on day 101 and declare that I have blue eyes
3. Every person with blue eyes commits to the rule: if the 99 people I see with blue eyes don't leave on day 99 then I will leave on day 100 and declare that I have blue eyes
4. Every person with blue eyes commits to the rule: if the 100 people I see with brown eyes don't leave on day 100 then I will leave on day 101 and declare that I have brown eyes
5. Therefore, every person with brown eyes will leave on day 100 and correctly declare that they have brown eyes and every person with blue eyes will leave on day 100 and correctly declare that they have blue eyes

If there is 1 person with brown eyes and 1 person with blue eyes then:

1. The person with brown eyes commits to the rule: if the person I see with blue eyes doesn't leave on day 1 then I will leave on day 2 and declare that I have blue eyes
2. The person with blue eyes commits to the rule: if the person I see with brown eyes doesn't leave on day 1 then I will leave on day 2 and declare that I have brown eyes
3. Therefore, the person with brown eyes will leave on day 2 and incorrectly declare that they have blue eyes and the person with blue eyes will leave on day 2 and incorrectly declare that they have brown eyes

So it doesn't matter how many "counterarguments" you come up with where the reasoning doesn't work with lower numbers or different combinations of eye colours; argument A is valid.

Well, I am my biology, my brain activity, my thoughts and so on, so to me this is another instance of everything being willed by yours truly.

Good times. — NOS4A2

Not everything our body does is voluntary.

Just as “one’s heartbeat” refers to a particular thing in the body, not the body as a whole, so too does “one’s will”. If eliminative materialism is correct then one’s will is a particular kind of neurological phenomena, and only bodily behaviour caused by that particular neurological phenomena is “being willed by yours truly”.

But in the scenario there is no magic, no one knows their eye colour and yet you think everyone can logically deduce their own eye colour without anyone saying anything. — unenlightened

I am saying both of these:

1. If I do not see anyone with blue eyes then I cannot deduce that I have blue eyes unless someone says "there is at least one person with blue eyes"

2. If I see 99 people with blue eyes then I can deduce whether or not I have blue eyes even if no-one says "there is at least one person with blue eyes"

You seem to think that because (1) is true then (2) is false? I don't think that follows at all.

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, even if we wait for the Guru to say "there is at least one person with blue eyes" it's not as if anyone is actually waiting to see if someone will leave on the first day. We already know that no-one will. Our waiting those first 98/99 days is purely performative, not informative, and we’d be surprised and dumbfounded if anyone left earlier than that.

Given that we can dismiss the first counterfactual situation outright, it doesn’t matter what would be required in that situation to know that there is at least one person with blue eyes; that requirement is not a requirement in our actual situation in which we see 99/100 people with blue eyes.

Then it should say '...and someone has said "I see blue"' because otherwise it is contradictory. — unenlightened

It doesn't need to say that.

1. If I know that there is at least one blue and if I do not see a blue then I am blue and will leave tonight

The practical mechanism by which I have come to know that there is at least one blue does not need to be specified for this conditional to be true. It is true even when left unspecified.

Much like:

2. If I kill myself then my parents will have only 1 living son

This is true even without specifying the practical mechanism by which I kill myself.

This is an impossible condition, because if you do not see a blue, and no one has told you anything you cannot know that there is at least 1 blue. — unenlightened

(1) doesn't say "nobody has told me anything".

Unfortunately, no one within the puzzle knows premise 1. — unenlightened

Which isn't relevant to what I am saying.

Given this argument:

1. There are 100 blue
2. Therefore, every blue sees 99 blue
3. Every blue commits to the rule: if the 99 blue I see don't leave on the 99th day then I am blue and will leave on the 100th day, else I am not blue
4. Therefore, every blue will leave on the 100th day, declaring themselves to be blue

I am saying:

a) if (1) and (3) are true then (4) is true, and
b) seeing 99 blue is reason enough for our logicians to commit to the rule defined in (3).

Why would they commit to 3? — flannel jesus

For the exact same reason that they would commit to it after hearing someone say "I see blue" or write "there is at least one blue".

None of them need to hear someone say "I see blue" to know that the following counterfactuals are true, or to know that everyone else knows that they are true:

1. If I know that there is at least one blue and if I do not see a blue then I am blue and will leave tonight
2. If everyone knows that there is at least one blue and if I see only one blue and if he doesn't leave tonight then I am blue and will leave tomorrow night
...

Being perfect logicians, this is just background knowledge.

And as I said in the post above, counterfactual scenarios (1) and (2) can be ruled out from the start. Given what they know of the actual scenario, it's not possible that a blue will leave on the first or second night.

if there were only 99, then no they wouldn't think it's not possible for blues to leave on day 98. That's what we're reasoning about. We're reasoning about "if there were only 99" — flannel jesus

Which is irrelevant.

Again, this is a valid argument:

1. There are 100 blue
2. Therefore, every blue sees 99 blue
3. Every blue commits to the rule: if the 99 blue I see don't leave on the 99th day then I am blue and will leave on the 100th day, else I am not blue
4. Therefore, every blue will leave on the 100th day, declaring themselves to be blue

If (1) and (3) are true then (4) is true. This cannot be avoided.

The only thing we need to ask is: what does it take for (3) to be true, i.e. what does it take for our logicians to commit to following this rule?

You say that they will only commit to this rule after hearing someone say "I see blue". I say that they will commit to this rule after seeing 99 blue.

Why would 99 leave on day 99 if they didn't reason that only 98 would leave on day 98? — flannel jesus

Because they have committed to the rule: if the 99 blue I see don't leave on the 99th day then I am blue and will leave on the 100th day, else I am not blue

They already know from the start that it is not possible for any blue to leave on the 98th day, so they don't need to consider it all.