But while in mourning, you're also indifferent to the cause - after all, it was an accident, and the victims are dead. Fair representation? Or not? — tim wood
That much power calls for controls. — tim wood
The notion that, "Oh well, it can't be helped," is plain wrong. It can be helped, if for no other reason than to take to heart the lesson, and learn. — tim wood
One solution is outright banishment - which imo is not - cannot be - right. — tim wood
Better mandatory controls and mandatory training. This I reckon you'd agree with - but gun nuts in the US cannot even tolerate the discussion. — tim wood
On exactly what grounds would you ban guns? And it makes sense to me to classify guns, if you need to, to make your argument. — tim wood
The greater the disproportion between the force needed to cause an event, and the force of the event itself, the greater the need for control. — tim wood
One solution is outright banishment - which imo is not - cannot be - right. — tim wood
Better mandatory controls and mandatory training. — tim wood
On exactly what grounds would you ban guns? And it makes sense to me to classify guns, if you need to, to make your argument.
— tim wood
Are you asking for a reason why? And what sense does it make to dwell on different classes of guns? I don't see that as being of any overarching significance, since the main conclusion that one should draw ought to be the same, whether we're talking about machine guns or pistols. — Sapientia
If you look at the post of mine to which you are responding you'll see that the text I was quoting from you was not the FBI links but the romans322 link.So I have to go to the BBC to check out the FBI? — Sir2u
The US Constitution has a 2d amendment, that in its misrepresentation by gun nuts is a gigantic pain in the ass. For present purpose let's discard it, but let's retain the germ of justification it contains. That germ is that The People, armed, are a protection against tyranny."The People" is not to be understood either as "people" or "individuals"; a point the gun nuts cannot allow. Any road. — tim wood
My real question concerns the nature of the thing itself. — tim wood
Guns are small, relatively simple machines that have been around for 500+ years. How do you ban, on what grounds do you ban, other than by rule of force, ownership [or] something like that? I am unable to assemble that argument. Can you? Admittedly you can argue in favor of; but I'm looking for the argument for. — tim wood
As to different classes of guns, I think it reasonable for different rules about different guns. AR-15-like guns were designed as jungle weapons for Viet-Nam. High velocity bullets, rapid fire capacity for close-in fighting where accuracy is not the primary concern, the bullets designed to maim and kill. At the other end is the .22 single shot rifle, for shooting targets, cans, and the occasional deserving squirrel. These simply are not similar devices, they should be treated (I argue) differently. — tim wood
I think tough penalties. I may watch too many movies, but I am under the impression that criminals in England do in fact fit their behaviour to the laws, in respect of the use of guns in committing crimes. — tim wood
Maybe tougher laws are needed, who knows. — Sir2u
Such a blasé attitude to a deadly serious issue. There's no "maybe" about it. There's no "who knows". A metaphorical shrugging of the shoulders simply isn't good enough. — Sapientia
The United States needs tighter gun controls, which means tougher laws, and it needs it now, or it risks yet more preventable tragedies taking place. — Sapientia
What would be good enough would be to simply keep quiet about it, and let others that take the massacres seriously, and those who live there and have to deal with the threat of ubiquitous guns daily, get on with trying to reduce the problem.Why should I get serious about it, I don't live there and neither do you for that matter. It makes absolutely no difference to my life what ever happens there. But what do you think would be good enough?
What would be good enough would be to simply keep quiet about it, — andrewk
and let others that take the massacres seriously, — andrewk
and [let] those who live there and have to deal with the threat of ubiquitous guns daily, get on with trying to reduce the problem. — andrewk
I don't think that's much to ask. — andrewk
'allowed' has nothing to do with it. It's about decency. If there is an issue that literally affects the ability of others to survive, and you don't take it seriously, the decent thing to do is stay out of it.Do you think I should not be allowed to join in the discussion?
It's about decency. — andrewk
If there is an issue that literally affects the ability of others to survive, and you don't take it seriously, the decent thing to do is stay out of it. — andrewk
Such a blasé attitude to a deadly serious issue. — Sapientia
The argument goes to risk? Risk can advise an argument, but I do not think it can resolve it, for the obvious reason that everything is risky.That means, for example, that whether Gun A has a greater potential for killing more people over a set period of time than Gun B; or whether possessing Gun A, rather than Gun B, carries a greater sentence; either way, they're a risk to society and ought to be tightly controlled, if not banned outright, which would be the ideal solution. — Sapientia
Some minds cannot comprehend disagreement on this issue as originating from anything other than apathy concerning the issue, callousness toward the victims, or an irrational love of guns. These ad hominems ought to be ignored if those presenting them refuse to engage with arguments. — Thorongil
The argument goes to risk? Risk can advise an argument, but I do not think it can resolve it, for the obvious reason that everything is risky. — tim wood
There's also a classification problem with risk. Is risk a one or a many? — tim wood
And for better or worse - and in the modern era to date it's much to the worse - The American experiment, the oldest running experiment of its kind in the world, provides for an armed citizenry. The argument as to the potential efficacy of an armed citizenry against a trained military is not to the point. [O]r, rather, is exactly to the point. That citizenry is a potent deterrent. Now, to be sure, modern gun ownership as it is in the US today has almost nothing to do with that original intent; it is instead a disgusting parasitic growth on it, sustained by a disgusting corruption. — tim wood
Banning guns may indeed be an ideal solution, but rational implementation, in my view, can occur only in an ideal world. — tim wood
You can suggest that I'm reading too much into it, but I don't think that my interpretation was way off the mark. — Sapientia
Apparently I wasn't the only one who took it that way, and his subsequent reply seems to align with such an interpretation. — Sapientia
A remark like that in the context of a discussion like this is going to come across in the way that I described: unmoved, casual, indifferent... — Sapientia
No, I have the gall to talk about you in plain sight. :grin: — Sapientia
In the context of ethics, it's the opposite. — Sapientia
You want me to educate you on what you already know, but deny to save face? — Sapientia
I don't believe for a second that you're ignorant if the relation between emotion and ethics. — Sapientia
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.