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

Or not. I think you missed the point.
It is not about anybody's indifference to the cause of death, that has little effect on the fact that they are dead. I would be just as pissed of if a water mains had bust and flooded the neighborhood to death.
But I would not be pissed off at the water mains or the bomb, that would be stupid. I would be pissed at the stupid fucking parents that let there kids play with a bomb and the idiots that fail to give proper maintenance to the water pipes. And the same goes for the gun

That much power calls for controls. — tim wood

Have I disagreed with this anywhere?

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

I have said as much on several occasions.

One solution is outright banishment - which imo is not - cannot be - right. — tim wood

I think like you, probably could never happen. But if it was going to happen it would have to start with all of the illegal arms used by criminals. No idea how that could happen.

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

Control and training would I agree help. But it still leaves the biggest problem unsolved.

WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO TRAIN THE CRIMINALS?

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? Or are you asking what lines I'd draw in going about it? With regard to the first question, I've said quite a lot already on that. Maybe I could muster up the energy to link to an earlier comment or reiterate my reasons, but I'm reluctant to do so. And with regard to the second question, obviously I'd draw some lines, and you can probably imagine some of the lines I wouldn't want to cross, but I can tell you that they're not the stuff of this complaint in relation to the confiscation of guns in Australia.

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.

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

If this is what you're getting at in relation to different classes of guns, then I agree. But that doesn't change the bottom line, which is the general point that guns ought to be tightly controlled, much more so than in America at present.

One solution is outright banishment - which imo is not - cannot be - right. — tim wood

Oh yes it can be. There's nothing wrong with that solution in principle. That certain privileges would be stripped away is a price worth paying for the end goal. It's been done before - slavery, anyone? - and if the circumstances are right, and the costs not too high, then it should be done again. Problems only arise in terms of implementation.

Better mandatory controls and mandatory training. — tim wood

That could only ever be a partial solution, and one which wouldn't go as far, though it's certainly better than doing nothing, or worse, going backwards. Would we still hear about school shootings and the like in the news? Yes. Less often than we do now, I would predict, which would be good; but more often than under an outright banishment, which would be bad. Wouldn't you - or shouldn't you - feel like you have blood on your hands for every case that would inevitably slip through the net? Just think, these would be actual people, with actual lives. What's more important here? Would you settle for tighter controls on the slave trade, rather than outright banishment? I know they're not quite the same, but in either case, it's a system with inherent flaws which can result in ruined lives.

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

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.

My real question concerns the nature of the thing itself. 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 of 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.

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.

WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO TRAIN THE CRIMINALS? — Sir2u

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.

So I have to go to the BBC to check out the FBI? — Sir2u

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.

I have made no comment about your FBI links. For most statistics I would generally regard FBI as a reliable source.

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

The Second Amendment, not the Two-Dimensional Amendment. And yes, I don't need to be reminded of the unfortunate fact that it forms a part of the Constitution.

As for what you call a justification, it isn't one, since there are other means of protection against tyranny, and the best means of protection against tyranny is certainly not a citizenry armed with guns, but rather having the checks and balances in place to maintain democracy.

An armed citizenry versus the armed forces would be a David versus Goliath scenario.

My real question concerns the nature of the thing itself. — tim wood

Oh god, don't go all Kantian on me. :wink:

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

It has been done elsewhere to a large extent, so that provides a template. The example of Australia has been raised recently, and the example of the United Kingdom has also been raised in this discussion. This isn't a problem in which a resolution must be obtained by starting from scratch with no precedent to relate to. Of course, you'd have to use force to some extent, and certainly the threat of force. Laws don't enforce themselves. We don't live in a utopia.

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

Yeah: targets, cans, squirrels, and occasionally children. :roll:

No one's saying that there are no differences, but it would be just as mistaken, if not more so, to deny the obvious similarities. I also didn't say that they should be treated in the exact same way. I actually made the point that, in spite of there being some differences in design and capacity, as well as how they're considered or treated, this doesn't change the bottom line or general point being argued. 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.

When I click on the reference link in the post it took me to the post containing the FBI links. Sorry if there is any confusion about it.

I agree that maybe the links did not lead to verified data, but how do you know that it is not true? Are you judging the book by the cover?

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

In England maybe it has been so, until recently they are seeing an increase in gun killings. But the main conversation here is about the USA.

As you say there are tough penalties in place for gun crimes, but they have not stopped them from happening. Maybe tougher laws are needed, who knows. An eye for an eye might work out better that prison, and a lot cheaper too. The price of a bullet or two against a life of relative ease in jail might be worth considering.

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. 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.

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

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? Should I start campaigning to have guns outlawed in the USA. Should I write letters to everyone I know begging them to join the campaign? Or should I mouth useless blathering on an internet forum hoping someone will stop the killings?
Stop being pompous and join reality.

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

So I ask again, what laws are needed, how are they going to be enforced.

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, 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.

I don't think that's much to ask.

What would be good enough would be to simply keep quiet about it, — andrewk

Do you think I should not be allowed to join in the discussion? Do you think that me being quiet will change anything. If you don't agree with me being allowed to say what I think, maybe you should stop reading my posts.

and let others that take the massacres seriously, — andrewk

So their taking things seriously and making serious posts will make a difference?

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

Is that not what I just said? Does not seem like they are doing such a good job of it so far though does it.

I don't think that's much to ask. — andrewk

You can ask all you want, you might not get what you asked for though. In case you have not noticed this is a discussion about the gun problems in the USA, not a congressional committee meeting to decide on the future of people's lives in the USA. Whatever is said here makes no difference to what happens there, unless you have some brilliant plan to save the day obviously.

I think you too should take a reality pill and go lie down till it starts to take effect.

Do you think I should not be allowed to join in the discussion?

'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.
What is said here may not make an enormous difference, but it will not make no difference as long as there are Americans that participate on this forum. For one thing, they vote. Secondly, they talk to others who vote, and who are in a position to protest on the streets, lobby etc.

It's about decency. — andrewk

So now it is indecent to say what you think?

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

I never said that I did not take it seriously, I asked simply why I should do so. I got no answer. Nothing implied that I was not doing so except

Such a blasé attitude to a deadly serious issue. — 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.

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. — Thorongil

You left out pride in being gun-toting bad-asses.

I just watched a ridiculously biased 60 Minutes interview, wherein it was assumed that there was only one solution and that the Stoneman Douglas students interviewed represented all students. Absurd. And yet it is the media who are always vomiting platitudes about having "real conversations" about important issues. A conversation is not had when one excludes at the start those with whom one disagrees. What instead results is an echo chamber.

60 Minutes might be more interested in ratings than fairness. The fact that a strong anti-NRA stance is the moment's definition of PC signifies what? Nothing?

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

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.

There's also a classification problem with risk. Is risk a one or a many?

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. or, 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.

Banning guns may indeed be an ideal solution, but rational implementation, in my view, can occur only in an ideal world.

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

It's not a fallacy to condemn a bad attitude towards an issue indicated by a statement made in the context of an ethical discussion about that very issue. It's entirely appropriate.

You can suggest that I'm reading too much into it, but I don't think that my interpretation was way off the mark. Apparently I wasn't the only one who took it that way, and his subsequent reply seems to align with such an interpretation. 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...

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

It's not all about risk. It comes down to a cost-benefit analysis, and, in my assessment, the costs significantly outweigh the benefits. Some risks are tolerable, others are not.

There's also a classification problem with risk. Is risk a one or a many? — tim wood

Hardly a pressing matter, it seems to me. What good would it do to dwell on this abstract philosophical dilemma stemming back to the time of Plato?

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

What makes you think that an armed citizenry is a potent deterrent?

Banning guns may indeed be an ideal solution, but rational implementation, in my view, can occur only in an ideal world. — tim wood

Not quite sure what that's getting at. What do you consider to be "rational implementation"?

In an ideal world, we wouldn't have this problem to begin with. In a world that is further from the ideal, but closer to it than ours, all gun owners would come to their senses and give up their guns without a fight. Those worlds are obviously not our world, and our world doesn't seem to stand any real chance of becoming such a world. However, we can, with enough effort, move in that direction. And I think that some costs towards reaching the goal are a price worth paying, so we don't need to hopelessly await a perfect solution. I'd settle for an imperfect one.

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

Are you talking about me behind my back? :cool:

Apparently I wasn't the only one who took it that way, and his subsequent reply seems to align with such an interpretation. — Sapientia

Birds of a feather and all that I suppose could explain it maybe.

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

A person that discusses from emotional points of view rarely make any real sense.

Are you talking about me behind my back? :cool: — Sir2u

No, I have the gall to talk about you in plain sight. :grin:

A person that discusses from emotional points of view rarely make any real sense. — Sir2u

In the context of ethics, it's the opposite.

No, I have the gall to talk about you in plain sight. :grin: — Sapientia

That is nice to know.

In the context of ethics, it's the opposite. — Sapientia

Ethics based on emotions are not ethics. Emotions are mostly irrational and very subjective that would render any system based on then as mostly useless when really needed.

Ethics based on emotions are not ethics. — Sir2u

What an absurd thing to say.

What an absurd thing to say. — Sapientia

So maybe you could explain how that would work them. Educate me.

What an absurd thing to say. — Sapientia

Almost completely absurd except to say that whilst all morals are responses to the emotional states of human interaction; ethics is the analysis of morality, and therefore an attempt to rationalise moral statements.

You want me to educate you on what you already know, but deny to save face? I don't believe for a second that you're ignorant of the relationship between emotion and ethics.

You want me to educate you on what you already know, but deny to save face? — Sapientia

What need could I possibly have to save face? It is not like I am going to run into you or anyone else from here on the street and get embarrassed.

I don't believe for a second that you're ignorant if the relation between emotion and ethics. — Sapientia

Honestly speaking, I am. I have the idea in my head that emotions are sort of internal, innate feelings that people have. They come into play when certain things happen to people. But I can see no relation other than through morality that they could be linked.
I suppose that ethics could study and analyze the relationships between emotions and moral behavior, it would seem counter productive to do so emotionally.

Please explain it to me. Maybe some of those that have little experience with ethics can learn something as well.