More practical than banning people, but still incredibly impractical considering human nature, the history of humanity, recent widely reported events, the frequency of such events, and the likelihood that such events will continue to take place until effective action is taken. — Sapientia

Banning guns is effective action? How so?

A wise man accepts correction. — Lone Wolf

My favorite saying, or at least one of them.

If the truth hurts, it is time to change it.

It was meant in humor, nonetheless... — Lone Wolf

It usually is when followed by a funny little face, that's a dead give away. :wink:

But I do agree that if authorities would be enabled to disable those with a record of criminal activities, then future crime would be reduced. — Lone Wolf

More research needs to be done to try and find out why people feel the need to kill each other, the findings would probably apply to more than just guns and be more beneficial in the long run.

I suppose it depends how you said it. If you meant it as an insult, then no, it wouldn't be respectful. — Lone Wolf

But it would be hurtful, even if you said it with total respectfulness and honesty.

All people are evil. :yikes: — Lone Wolf

That is what you said, not me. :smile:

I just want the evil ones banning.

I seriously think it would be easier to pick up a couple of thousand people than several million guns, And there would probably be fewer complaints about it as well.

Everyone in the USA that wants guns banned should start calling their political representatives right now. And don't stop until you get the answers you want.

I have a dream,
that one day all people will be treated equally
that no one will be a racist, sexist, or even suffer from superiority complexes
that politicians will stop lying
that commercials will tell the truth
that people will stop using products that hurt the earth
that people will learn to read books again
etc, etc.

We all have dreams.
And nightmares.

Yeah. Ban people. :up: People are evil. — Lone Wolf

Well at least we could start by banning evil people.

And then the guns could live in peace. :victory:

Respect must be the act of esteeming a view or person, in the sense that the one who respects holds the other in high regards and supports/agrees with it. In order to respect, one must restrain negativity by means of rules constructed in tradition, refusing to inflict harm on the respected. — Lone Wolf

Would it be disrespectful to tell a person that has earned your high regards, that something he said was just plain stupid even if what he said was just plain stupid? I think it would be more respectful to tell them the truth even if it hurt.

I still don't understand why people fail to notice that without a person holding it, a gun is as dangerous as a paperweight. Get rid of the people if you don't want them killing each other with guns, or paperweights for that matter.

Neither are guns. — Thorongil

Right, guns are designed to shoot bullets that's all. They have no knowledge nor control of what people do with those bullets.

Out of the millions of guns in the USA, how many have actually been used for killing people? I really doubt that it is even 1%.

And no one even needs a truck to assault and kill people, any old car will do. Just look in the newspapers, it is happening more and more.

Probably not so well, but they do look kind of cool don't they?

I have a flat wall in an place that I am going use for a TV area, that would look nice around a flat screen.

I use the Russellian definition, which is one among other popular/standard philosophical definitions. — numberjohnny5

Interesting article.
"Like properties and particulars, states of affairs make up an ontological category — a fundamental kind of entity. At least, they seem to be so regarded by those philosophers who deploy this concept in philosophical explanations. Explicit recognition of states of affairs is relatively recent in philosophy. In the guise of facts, states of affairs entered center stage at the beginning of the 20th century in efforts of Bertrand Russell (Russell 1985) and Ludwig Wittgenstein (Wittgenstein 1961) to account for truth as a property of beliefs or sentences."

So, in light of these definitions, my view is that as facts/states of affairs aren't the same kind of thing as mental states — numberjohnny5

The article you referenced says,
"The justification for thinking there are states of affairs could thus be regarded as abductive, that is, as a kind of inference to the best explanation. This kind of inference can be evaluated along a number of dimensions — Is the data real or bogus?"

How can any form of inference or evaluation not be mental.

"The Combination Argument

Both Bertrand Russell and G. E. Moore came to hold that the only states of affairs that there are are facts -- states of affairs that obtain. Various passages in their writings suggest an argument for this conclusion, based on the compositionalist conception of states of affairs. For example:

We are not now hearing the noise of a brass-band; and we all, I think, can understand the nature of the fact which I express by saying we are not. What these words imply is that there simply is no such thing in the Universe as our being now hearing that particular kind of noise. The combination of us at this moment with hearing of that particular kind of noise is a combination which simply has no being. There is no such combination. (Moore 1966, pp. 277-278)

We can call this the "combination argument" (Wetzel 1998). If we consider (1)

(1) this wall's being dark green

this state of affairs would simply consist of this wall exhibiting the color dark green, on the compositionalist view. For there to be such an entity, this connection must hold between the wall the color since the state of affairs simply is the connecting of the wall to the color dark green.

In arguing for states of affairs, Gustav Bergmann (Bergmann 1964) and D. M. Armstrong (Armstrong 1997) appeal to an argument of the following sort:

The constituents of (1) are, let us say, the wall surface and the color dark green. How is (1) differentiated from the mere collection of these constituents {this wall, being dark green}, or the mereological sum of those constituents, this wall+being dark green? Presumably the constituents might exist even if they were not so connected. But if the constituents of (1) could exist even if (1) did not, then (1) cannot be reduced to simply the collection or mereological sum of its constituents.

The combination argument shows that this conclusion is inconsistent with the existence of possible but non-obtaining states of affairs, as follows:

(B1) For a basic state of affairs of the form a's-having-F, a's-having-F exists when and only when exemplification connects a to F.

(B2) If a is connected by exemplification to F, then a's-having-F obtains.

(B3) Hence, a's-having-F exists only if it obtains.

(B4) Since this could be generalized to other ties connecting constituents to form states of affairs, there are no non-obtaining states of affairs.

The combination argument assumes that exemplification is the connection that accounts for the unity (and thus existence) of a basic state of affairs of the form a's-having-F. The argument also assumes that exemplification is the connection that accounts for the obtaining of a basic state of affairs of the form a's-having-F. Clearly, the soft actualist cannot agree with both assumptions.

At this point a soft actualist compositionalist might appeal to the following distinction. Let us say that the connection among the constituents of a state of affairs that accounts for the existence of that state of affairs is the constitutive connection for that state of affairs. And let us say that the connection among the constituents of a state of affairs that accounts for the obtaining of a state of affairs is the actualization connection for that state of affairs. In the Tractatus Logico-philosophicus Wittgenstein says: "Form is the possibility of structure." (Wittgenstein 1961, p. 13) Wittgenstein appears to be differentiating the constitutive and actualization connections of states of affairs. The "structure" (such as exemplification) is the actualization connection. The possibility of such structure being realized is the constitutive connection. The possibility of this wall surface being dark green is the constitutive connection that is necessary and sufficient for the existence of (1), on this view. Thus, a soft actualist who views states of affairs as compositional can use this distinction to escape the conclusion that there are no non-obtaining states of affairs. Exemplification must hold between the constituents of a's-having-F for this state of affairs to obtain, but a different tie accounts for the existence of that state of affairs. Soft actualism thus requires two primitives where hard actualism can get by with one."

This is the continuation of some of Russell' ideas. It seems to imply that there must be some sort of perception for there to be a state of affairs. He also pointed out that states of affairs are facts, not that facts are states of affairs.

I'm using the standard philosophical definition of "fact". — numberjohnny5

Where did you get this definition? Please give me the link to it, unless it is Wikipedia.

yeeks! :worry:

All of that work.

Is there a way to edit posts on here I don't know about? — Johnny Public

Click on the bottom of the post and some dots should appear, click on the dots and a pencil will appear.

http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/sentences/free-diagramming-sentences-worksheet.html

http://teachingsquared.com/language-arts-worksheets/grammar-worksheets/sentence-diagramming-worksheets/

https://www.english-grammar-revolution.com/english-grammar-exercise.html

Notice that Australia isn't even shown. It hadn't been discovered yet. — T Clark

It is down in the right hand corner. Hiding like all shy Aussies. :wink:

If we are not perceiving/experiencing some X, then we cannot make claims about some X. In other words, we have to have some experience of some X to be able to claim some X exists or to make particular claims about aspects of some X. Is that right? — numberjohnny5

Yes, it is not possible to make claims about anything that no information exists for.

Information about some X is knowledge obtained from some X. That seems to be saying that making claims about some X is impossible without experiencing some X. Is that right? — numberjohnny5

Not exactly. while it is true that information about anything has to come from the source, the object itself provides us with the information, if no one has any information about something then no one can make any claims about it.

If so, the issue I'm trying to resolve is not about making claims about some X. The issue for me is whether experiencing some X and making claims about some X is necessary for some X to obtain/exist. — numberjohnny5

If absolutely no information about X exists no one can make claims about whether it exists or not, it might or it might not exist. Could you give me an example of something that exists but that we have no information at all about? Our knowledge or lack of it has nothing at all to do with somethings exists, there are zillions of things out there in the universe that no one knows about but nobody can claim that they exist.

The "obtaining" of a state of affairs just means the actual happening/occurring/existence of a fact/event. But you don't seem to think that facts happen unless they're known about.

"Obtain" means exist/happen. — numberjohnny5

I think you should get a dictionary.
So where does the "obtaining" part fit in, is it not the gathering, collecting, acquisition of knowledge? Is there a definition of obtaining that I do not know? What is the definition you use?
Events might happen, as I have already said, but an event is not the same as a fact. And unless you can find some way to prove that they are the same then there is no way to continue. I cannot agree to them meaning the same thing.

I'm saying that some X/that particular X you experienced didn't actually/ontologically just appear/begin-to-exist just when you or because you observed/experienced it. — numberjohnny5

I have never said it did. That is why one says that one observed an event, because one is watching it happening. They happen simultaneously, it would be impossible for the "looking at it" to make it happening.

When I talk about "facts" I'm making existence claims. Facts obtain/occur/happen/are/etc. So I'm saying some facts exist that we don't know about to support my claim that objective facts don't rely on minds to exist. That objective facts are mind-independent. (Subjective facts are mental facts.) — numberjohnny5

I cannot accept your use of the word fact to include the unknown. Something that is unknown cannot be a fact. Please mention just one unknown fact and I will agree with you that it is possible. The tell me an objective fact.

It wouldn't be a true proposition about a particular, actual unknown or un-experienced fact/event. — numberjohnny5

If it is not a true proposition about a particular object, event then it cannot be a fact.

How could you claim that if you have no information/experience/knowledge about those unknown things? That's the argument you're using against me! You're contradicting yourself. — numberjohnny5

Simple deduction my friend, if there was nothing unknown in the universe then nothing new would be discovered, but as we see every day new things are being discovered thus there are still unknown things in the universe. But that might change tomorrow if they fail to find anything new.

Do you believe in past facts? — numberjohnny5

Anything, even things in the past that have been certified as a fact remain a fact while the circumstances about the fact remain the same. When they were declared facts they were actual states of affair, or evidence of them still exists to prove that they were facts. Archeologists dig up past facts all the time, even if they don't know what they are.

How can something actual not be happening? — numberjohnny5

Who said it could not?

I'm a Heraclitean, in that sense. — numberjohnny5

That sounds interesting.

Or you're using "facts" in a different way to me; — numberjohnny5

No, you are using it incorrectly.

I wouldn't say "facts are information" because that's a category error. — numberjohnny5

Not in my dictionary.
Fact; A piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred

Rather, I'd say information as knowledge is factually a mental event, since knowledge occurs in minds. — numberjohnny5

And you would, and do have it wrong. The only part that you have right is that it occurs in the mind.
Knowledge; The psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning.

Many people claim to have knowledge of god, can anyone prove it to be a fact.
Lots have people have been walking around with the erroneous knowledge that screwing standing up stops a woman from getting pregnant. That was the result of perception, learning and reasoning. But a lot of them still get pregnant because it is not a fact.

Person A: "That cup is an object".
Me: "That Earth preexisted us is a fact". — Sapientia

Sorry to butt in here, but yes it is easy to see why there is confusion.
In the first sentence "that" is used as a pronoun.
In the second it is used as a conjunction.

Maybe that is why you are confused.

You responded with an opinion, based on a handful of expat Americans whose opinion you sought, that Americans don't want to pay for gun control. I suspect your opinion is mistaken. — andrewk

You responded with your opinion, based on who knows what. I suspect your opinion is mistaken.

This question was answered in my antepenultimate post. — andrewk

OK.

The building is beautiful, but with domes I'm always asking myself how I could stack all my boxes against a curved wall. — T Clark

By making curved shelves. The difference between one end and the other over a six foot shelf would not be too much. You would just have to learn to stack the big ones in the middle.

My computer screen, waiting to see if it does anything interesting.

And just how much are you certain about? Are you ever going to be certain about everything?

Try naming things that you are not certain about.

Now try naming things you are certain about.

Which is the bigger list?

"The only thing you can be certain of is that you cannot be certain of anything" — Yadoula

Look at the things around you, are they really there? Can you prove that they are?

Somehow I think my last words will be something like: ”That’s not exactly what I had in mind...” Or: ”Well that was interesting...” — XTG

Mine would probably be "OH well, WTF."

They managed to convince them in Australia in 1996-7. In fact they convinced them to take the guns not to the roadside but all the way to the local police station or other designated local collection facility and hand them in. — andrewk

Did you check to see how many there were? There was a big difference between what they had in Australia and what they have in the US. Remember size counts, especially with a problem like this.

As noted above, all the problems you mention have been solved in other countries. Sure the solutions cost money but spending money to provide security is a fundamental role of government, not an optional extra. IIRC for Hobbes, it was the only role of government. Given what the US spends on defence and on spying on its own citizens, that principle seems to be perfectly well-accepted there. — andrewk

OK, so I ask again. If it is so easy, why has it not been done already? Because of all of the problems involved in doing it maybe.

The only way to solve the problems of a country is through education. I have said from the beginning that if you don't want people to have guns, then you need to educate them to not want guns.

Oh by the way, you really do need to start reading your references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_affairs_(philosophy). Nice one son. :up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_affairs_(philosophy).

Given as a source in an exiting thread. I think I need help in understanding what it says. :rofl:

A fact is, traditionally, the worldly correlate of a true proposition, a state of affairs whose obtaining makes that proposition true. Thus a fact is an actual state of affairs. — numberjohnny5

"Thus a fact is an actual state of affairs."
The key word here is Actual.
Presently existing in fact and not merely potential or possible
Taking place in reality; not pretended or imitated
Being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something
Existing in act or fact

Not one of those definitions allows one to suppose that something is happening. They would all need confirmation that an event is happening.

Facts possess internal structure, being complexes of objects and properties or relations. Thus the fact that Brutus stabbed Caesar contains the objects Brutus and Caesar standing to one another (in that order) in the relation of stabbing. It is the actual obtaining of this state of affairs that makes it true that Brutus stabbed Caesar. — numberjohnny5

So how does one obtain the state without the information necessary.

It's not clear to me what you take "information" to be based on your descriptions there. It seems like you've given two definitions of information: "the product of the event" and "the description of the event". Can you clarify what you mean? In what sense "product," and in what sense "description"? — numberjohnny5

I use the standard definition of information
Knowledge acquired through study, experience or instruction
A collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn

So both of the ways I use it seem to be perfectly in order.

Joe lifts his hand and slaps Fred, a series of events that I have experienced. The event itself was created by the people involved and and I watching received the information.
Because I witnessed the event I have the information about it and a good description(the facts) of it for anyone that wants to hear the details. I can also concluded from seeing Joe's actions that it must have hurt Fred.

But not having mental phenomena about some X doesn't mean that X isn't real. Things we don't know have no bearing on whether those things exist. — numberjohnny5

But not having mental phenomena about something simply means that we do not know anything about them therefore it cannot be claimed that facts exist about them.

A fact is, traditionally, the worldly correlate of a true proposition, a state of affairs whose obtaining makes that proposition true. — numberjohnny5

Where would you get the true proposition about anything that is unknown?
Where would you obtain a state of affairs that would make the proposition true?

If no one knows about some phenomena it doesn't mean that phenomena isn't happening (unless you're some kind of idealist). — numberjohnny5

I have already stated that there are many unknown things happening in the universe.

Facts include knowable and unknowable phenomena. That's because mental phenomena has no bearing on facts obtaining for me (unless the only facts existing were mental facts/events). — numberjohnny5

You are very confused. Facts are information therefore they are subjective according to your own words. In your head, mental.

Why would a gun amnesty cut funds in education? — Akanthinos

Where did I say that it would cut funds to education?

In case you have not noticed there are a bunch of teachers striking because of low pay, there is a deficit in nearly all states of qualified teacher, and they are having problems with security in the schools. would it not make more sense to bolster education? Would it not make sense to start proper training facilities for gun use and teach people the dangers of firearms?

How much money do you think the government has already spent across the country in legal costs to try and implement gun laws? I will try to find the article again, but it said basically that millions have been spent in court cases that have come about because of the government trying to put restrictions on guns.

And I seriously doubt that a general amnesty would work, not many would willing give up their guns.

I mean, it's not going to be free, but it certainly won't cost in the billions — Akanthinos

Some of the estimates go over 300,000,000, A realistic amount to pick up each gun, including people going house to house with court orders to require the people to hand over their weapons, the cost of each court order, the cost of finding out who has guns so that the court orders can be issued. Take into account how many man hours it will take and multiple that by the minimum wage, let's say $10, we wont count the multitude of high priced lawyers that will be fighting it ever step of the way. I think that you are well into the billions, and that is if you don't run into any serious problems.
And then there is the transportation cost to take into account. And the storage of all those weapons with plenty of security because obviously you don't want anyone stealing the guns again after you spent all of that money getting them. And then there is the destruction of them. Wow, that does not sound cheap.

How much trash is generated in a week in the U.S? If it cost 1 dollars to pick up every one of those trash bags... See where I'm going with this? — Akanthinos

No, I don't see where you are going. There is absolutely no way to compare the two procedures. At least when I lived stateside the people happily took their trash to the edge of the road and the guy just had to pick it up and throw it into the truck.

Hey but maybe they could convince people to to the same with their guns.

Chocolate needs to be the last word. :heart: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No, shut the bloody door was always the last words I heard as I left the house.

The reason it has not been done already is simply that the NRA is enormously powerful and does not want gun control legislation of any form, no matter how practical and affordable it may be. — andrewk

The NRA might be powerful, but if the US public wanted something like gun bans there would be gun bans. The last yanks I talked to about this were living outside of the US, and they said that they paid too many taxes already, and that they were not willing to let the government tax them more so that people could have their guns taken away. Especially as the major part of gun crimes were committed with illegal guns that could not be confiscated.

Gun controls will not work, for many reasons. The only way to stop gun violence is to remove the guns.
There are an estimated 270,000,000 guns in the country, if it takes a dollar for each one to be picked up how much is that. Would that money not be better spent on education? Most think it would.

You ask a number of valid technical questions about how a proposed gun control act would work. I don't see the questions as being important to the philosophical debate though, — andrewk

Not much of the discussion has actually been philosophical, it is mostly peoples' opinions.

because we can observe that they have practical, satisfactory answers from the simple fact that most OECD countries have rules of this type and they work in an acceptable, cost-effective manner. — andrewk

You are right about that, many countries have succeeded in restricting guns. But how many of them had the amount of guns that are in the US?

For any proposed piece of legislation, however uncontroversial, I could ask dozens of important questions about who implements it, who pays, how it is enforced, what is done to protect abuse and so on, but they don't really have any bearing on the determination of whether to do the legislation unless there is reason to suppose they do not have satisfactory answers. — andrewk

So why has it not been done already, surely there are sufficient experts in the country to arrange for all of these problems to be resolved efficiently. This then, is obviously one of the reasons why legislature has not been passed.
If they thought that legislation would work they would have implemented it years ago. Most of the problems with any laws that are passed is the implementation of them, if they are not going to be enforced for whatever reason then it is a waste of time to pass them.

The other reason is the financial loses that it will incur. There are millions of registered guns that pay for permits. Gun manufactures pay taxes and provide jobs to thousands. Sales tax is paid on the guns bought. Hunting permits bring in cash to places that have very little to offer except hunting a few months a year. There are plenty of financial reasons not to bring in laws.

Apparently because a man is a man the prevailing attitude is 'Suck it up Buttercup' when it comes to their emotional needs, which men do have. While this might seem a little off-topic, please bear with me. — Antaus

I actually saw a case of this happening, on a visit to the local police station. I live in a society that is still in the men are macho era.
The guy was asked if he really wanted to accuse his partner of domestic violence. When he said that he did because she had attacked him with a knife(showing them the cut), they asked if he was prepared for his friends and neighbors to laugh at him for not being able to manage his wife. He quietly left. The friend that I was visiting told me later that the woman had come in and accused her husband of assault because he had punched her. When they picked up the man he said that he was not to blame because the police had given him permission to manage the problem himself.

Here's my legislation: — Baden

Hey, you are not a law maker are you?

Basic handguns and rifles allowed but on a licensed basis i.e. you have to pass a competency test and undergo strict background criminal and mental health checks to own one. Everything beyond that including semi-automatic weapons banned. Simple. (And no impact on the much coveted 2nd amendment as owners still have the right to bear arms just not all arms—the latter point being in principle already conceded by acceptance of the illegality of machine guns and etc.) — Baden

See, it was not hard. But some of the most brilliant minds(according to them) could not come up with that.

The problem I see is and always has been the implementation and enforcement of any kind of controls, even the simplest as you state them.
How many people are actually qualified to do mental health checks on all of the people that own guns, how many would be needed?
How many people are actually qualified to do competency testing for any kind of weapon? I doubt that there are enough to test the millions of people that own guns.
Criminal checks would not be a problem, supposedly, because everyone in the USA has a social security number and/or identity of some kind and the interstate cooperation between police forces is fantastic. So it would be easy to track down and check up on all registered gun owners. Except that there are so many that are not registered and there are a lot of fake IDs used to get jobs never mind guns.

Who would have to foot the bill for all of this? The general public, the gun owners? What would happen to all of the people that have been employed to do all of these checks once they had finished.
What about the security of the data bases used to hold all of this information? If so many other government and private sites are being hacked, would you like to have so much of your personal data in one place like that? It would almost be like a shopping list for someone that wants a gun. The would know where you live, what kind of gun you have and be able to guess when you are not home by your work details.

I don't think too many people would be willing to register their guns if they had to go through all of that. Guns can and are bought on the street and someone that wants one will get one.

Predicted result: A little less freedom (for owners of dangerous guns). A lot less death and injury for everyone else. — Baden

I would prefer less freedom for dangerous owners of guns. But yes, less death and injury would help.

Well, at least it shows you're trying to agree! :P — numberjohnny5

I always try to understand what others are saying, it is up to them to convince me to agree with them and for me to do the same.

I've never comes across this definition of "fact". — numberjohnny5

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact

There are sometimes many definitions of a word. When this happens it is necessary to provide the definition one is using to avoid problems. People tend to presume that the meaning of what they write is obvious.

Anyway, a reason why "fact" is the same as "event" is because in my ontology all things are events. In other words, all things/objects are comprised of properties in relations interacting in particular ways with other things. There's a dynamic fluidity to all that exists, and all that exists is physical, in my view. So in that sense, events are properties undergoing change. Information, as phenomena that we perceive and organise mentally, is included in this ontology. — numberjohnny5

I suppose that if this is your way of seeing things then it is acceptable, but I am still not sure whether or not I could agree with it.

I think information is a mixture of the event and our experience and processing of the event into an organised, coherent and meaningful set of statements/judgements. — numberjohnny5

This is were I disagree most. I do not see the event itself as the information. From my point of view the information is the product of the event, even if the event is just a tree sitting in the middle of a forest. The information is the description of the event.

You're conflating knowledge about events with events. They are not the same. It seems like you're defining "fact" as "knowledge-by-acquaintance" (or acquaintance knowledge). — numberjohnny5

No, you are doing that. See above. Fact and knowledge are not the same. We can have facts as knowledge but we cannot have all of the facts. My question was, if information about some obscure event in the universe is not available to us is it still a fact? Using common acceptable definitions of fact, I don't see how that is possible.

Conventionally, knowledge is justified, true belief in analytic philosophy, right? That's mental phenomena. You're saying mental phenomena about phenomena we have no mental phenomena about is not phenomena. — numberjohnny5

No, I am saying that if something is unknown then we cannot have mental phenomena about it. It is, if it is actually happening phenomena. But How does anyone know about it?

Do you have a term for phenomena we do not experience and have knowledge of then, if it's not the term "fact" for you? — numberjohnny5

The Unknown.

Let's return to my vignette about someone driving in another country being a fact/event. Would you agree that just because you or I do not know about someone driving in another country at this present moment, that it is therefore not an event that is actually taking place? That because we aren't aware of, having an experience of, or have no knowledge that someone in another country is driving right now, it is not an event? Is that your position? — numberjohnny5

Ok, I think that here is were the problem of our misunderstanding lies. If those people are driving around some place, then they are witnesses to their own events. Others would see them as well. This would be a fact.
But how can something be a fact if absolutely no one knows about it?

If a supernova occurred it would be a fact despite our lack of knowledge about it. Again, knowledge-by-acquaintance is not identical to what--the thing/event in question--we're acquainting ourselves with. Things happen, whether we are aware of them or not. — numberjohnny5

This, again, is where we diverge in agreement. Events and information cannot be the same thing. Information is the result of events, events cause information. What information is available if no event occurs? None right.

So facts are mental phenomena, for you? What's the difference between "reality" and "fact"? What are events that aren't known? — numberjohnny5

Look at any of the definitions of fact, what do they all imply? Reality is everything that is in existence, of which we know very little. Fact is what we do know about reality. Event about which we have no knowledge (unknown) are usually called unknown events because we have no facts about them. There might have been events that generated information, but we do not have the facts.

Because if events/facts only occur when minds know about them occurring, that's a causal argument. That is, you'd be positing that minds and only minds cause events to occur. — numberjohnny5

No, events occur all the time. I am positing that events can happen, do happen but we are often ignorant of their passing because we have no facts about them. No one said anything about our minds causing events to happen even though that sometimes is the case, as in the event of me replying to you.

I think that you should stop calling events facts unless you can properly explain how that is possible and where you got the definition of fact that you use.

As to it being inherently so, this comes with prioritizing being/awareness over reasoning, imo. — javra

Neither suffering nor happiness are essential parts of life, we can all live without them. I agree that we all search for and enjoy happiness and avoid suffering when possible.
But.
Love and hate, attraction and revulsion, happiness and sadness, happiness and suffering are all conditions of life. The fact that we prefer some over others does not make them less inherent in life for they are in everyone's lives whether we want them or not.

Which brings us back to the forever unanswered question.

Does life have a meaning?

Is there any inherent meaning in suffering? — Posty McPostface

I wonder what the posters above would have answered had the question been

Is there any inherent meaning to happiness?

Everyone sees the purpose of happiness in their lives for it is easy to see and explain its meaning, to make us want to keep on living. Some believe it is a part of evolution that makes us seek happiness so as to continue the race.
But it is definitely not easy to figure out what part of evolution suffering can fulfill. Maybe it is to stop us doing dangerous things that we have seen others do. But that does not seem to work because mankind loves to go to war. It does not explain suffering because of unwanted illness and situations not of our causing.

I have often wondered why so many religions have the belief that suffering is the way to heaven. It seems as though the god has some sort of sadistic intentions toward his creation. Sort of like "Let me see you hurting now and I'll pay you for it later".

Personally I don't think there is any inherent meaning to anything about life, it is just a matter of you having it so make what you can of it.