They don't need to. Where I live gun ownership is very rare and the gun crime rate is very low - partly because we have strong gun control laws, that have overwhelming public support. — andrewk
I know what 'rarely' means, and you know that I know it and that that has nothing to do with what I asked you.
You implied that some ratio is low and that that somehow helps your argument against gun control but, when we take your sentence and try to find a clear, precise proposition in it, we end up with nonsense. I suspect you've already realised this, which is why you keep on dodging the question. — andrewk
Why not just admit you wrote something that made no sense? It's no big deal. We all do it quite frequently, especially me. — andrewk
The admission wouldn't hamper your ability to continue arguing against gun control, should you wish to do so. — andrewk
I included his quote above yours. I addressed it to both of you, since he said it and you humoured him without addressing the elephant in the room. — S
No, you just don't like it when I correctly identify an error in one of your replies, although I was basically beaten to the punch by andrewk when he said that you didn't answer the question. — S
Bring in tougher gun laws which can be enforced, and enforce them. — S
No, it's about being observant to the behavior and opinions of common people around you. If you want to know more about how things are being discussed outside of your own small group of friends and relatives you need to act like an anthropologist and really look and listen to how people are. — Christoffer
I already told you the realistic route of action. Stop acting naive. — Christoffer
Philosophy of ethics and justice. — Christoffer
Have you ever met anyone outside of philosophy who can do a proper dialectic? — Christoffer
Most discussions about sensitive topics always end up in brawls with each side always saying their opinion and no one reaching a higher level of understanding. It's exactly because of the lack of dialectic tools. But you don't seem to know much about these things? — Christoffer
It might be more evident in my country, but here are some hints
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/mark-cuban-philosophy-degree-will-be-worth-more-than-computer-science.html
https://bigthink.com/experts-corner/why-future-business-leaders-need-philosophy — Christoffer
Why do you think that philosophers have been gaining popularity as a hired consultant in many workplaces? — "Christoffer
Philosophy is more about how you think about problems, not direct solutions to problems. — Christoffer
What's the point of hiring someone who has the answers to current problems if they cannot solve new ones further down the road? — Christoffer
I recommend that you study a bit more philosophy before you demand solutions in the way you do. — Christoffer
You're acting like a child right now and it's probably not worth continuing this discussion when you seem incapable of being humble. — Christoffer
You know nothing about me, so who's actually sitting on a high horse, judging? — Christoffer
And the funny thing is that I doubt that you have figured out the truth about the world and existence but here you are talking about gun control. Without providing a solution. — Sir2u
And exactly what do you think the elephant was, maybe I did miss it. But I replied to the part I quoted and nothing else in his post, so I don't think that I was either humoring him nor missing anything.
He said it would hat it would be alright to shoot anyone with a gun and I asked who would do the shooting.
End of topic, nothing missed. — Sir2u
Say what? Talking about missing the point, and here we have a good example. In every discussion you have said the same thing. Could you be specific in exactly what those laws would be? And how they would apply to all of the illegal weapons?
And I can probably guess your answer to this as well, "I am not a law maker". So what enforceable laws would you, as a thinking individual person, like to see put into the law books? — Sir2u
You erroneously equate "a solution" with a complete solution in full detail, ready and waiting to be implemented. People here have outlined the solution for you. Your expectations, as I've explained multiple times here, are unreasonable. We aren't all going to go off to gain the required expertise and then spend all the required time and dedication to produce some sort of Treatise On The Problem Of Firearms. — S
Oh man, that's priceless. — S
I don't recall him saying anything about this hat which you mention. — S
But I do recall him saying something about shooting armed criminals, which seems to be jumping ahead without justification. You addressed what he said on his own terms, taking into account the whole shooting armed criminals thing, whereas I challenged it. — S
I would like to see those enforceable laws for which there is evidence of them working be put into the law books and enforced. — S
Evidence of these laws working has been given in this discussion. Evidence of these laws working has been given in this discussion. That you might discount the evidence is not that it hasn't been given, nor is it that it's right to discount it. — S
Did you think about this before you wrote it? If there are enforceable laws that have been proven to be effective then there would be no need to put them into the law books because they are already there. sounds like gobble de goop to me. — Sir2u
And it was pointed out that what works well in one place will not always work in another. The same applies to baking cakes, it is different at sea level that when you are on top of a mountain. That you cannot see these difference or cannot understand how they apply to the different situations is your problem. And it is not right to discount other peoples' way of thinking just because they do not agree with your narrow minded, ignorant, inexperienced way of thinking. — Sir2u
Keep on look for the easter eggs, I left several here for you're enjoyment. — Sir2u
No you didn't. That is the first time you have proposed that as an answer to my question, or that you have even mentioned the word 'ratio' in your replies. Further, the ratio you mention in this quote is one of object counts (numbers of police and number of guns), not events (crimes and attendances at crimes) which is what your original claim that I dispute was about.You asked about the ration and I explained several times that it is the number of cops to the number of guns that need to be collected or confiscated. — Sir2u
I am sorry that you feel bullied. I am not aware of having written anything that was bullying, but if I have you need only point it out and I will delete it and apologise.It is not about beating and bullying others into submission and trying to force them into admitting that they are wrong. — Sir2u
No. Read about the Australian gun buy-back here. There is plenty of room for a discussion about the differences between the pre-1996 Australian situation and the current US situation, and the effect those differences have on the viability of applying the same strategy to the US, but suggesting there were no guns to be confiscated forms no part of that. Approximately 650,000 guns were collected and destroyed.there was probably never any guns to get rid of — Sir2u
Yes, I did. Did you think about that before you typed and submitted it? — S
Surely you must know a thing or two about the obstacles against legislating and enforcing laws for which there is good evidence that they're effective? In the USA, there's the Republic Party, the NRA, lobbyists, the rampant gun culture... — S
In short, act to make the conditions right, then act to change the law or the ways in which it is enforced or both. — S
Let me re-state your mistake.
An enforceable law should be added to to the law books is basically what you said.
But if it is an enforceable law then it is already a law and therefore there is no need for it to be added to the law book again. — Sir2u
What has this got to do with anything? If it is already a law that is enforceable why would there be any problems anywhere, or with anyone. — Sir2u
Basically what I have been saying from the beginning, education first. — Sir2u
No you didn't. That is the first time you have proposed that as an answer to my question, or that you have even mentioned the word 'ratio' in your replies. — andrewk
You asked about the ration and I explained several times that it is the number of cops to the number of guns that need to be collected or confiscated. I even stated instead of implying that there are to few cops to do the job. — Sir2u
So who is going to shoot them if no one else is carrying a gun? And please don't answer the cops, because everyone knows there are hundreds of illegal guns for each cop. — Sir2u
Just shooting anyone with a gun would not work because there are not enough people to do the job. Each cop would have to find and shoot several hundred bad guys. — Sir2u
The ratio you keep on about I think is maybe something that I did not hint at but is implicit in what I said, lots of guns and very few cops. But I am sure that I had already said that. — Sir2u
I think he means the ratio of "good guys with guns to bad guys with guns". — VagabondSpectre
Further, the ratio you mention in this quote is one of object counts (numbers of police and number of guns), not events (crimes and attendances at crimes) which is what your original claim that I dispute was about. — andrewk
You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed — Sir2u
You seem to be hinting at some sort of ratio being low. What ratio do you have in mind? There is no obvious ratio that makes sense, given the above sentence. — andrewk
If you want to drop your original rhetorical flourish about police not preventing crime ......................................................... But saying that that your claim about police attending crime scenes was making that point falls flat. — andrewk
and instead focus on an argument about there being too few police to enforce a government gun acquisition program, by all means do so. There are complex issues to discuss in that direction. — andrewk
I am sorry that you feel bullied. I am not aware of having written anything that was bullying, but if I have you need only point it out and I will delete it and apologise. — andrewk
Why not just admit you wrote something that made no sense? — andrewk
No. Read about the Australian gun buy-back here. There is plenty of room for a discussion about the differences between the pre-1996 Australian situation and the current US situation, and the effect those differences have on the viability of applying the same strategy to the US, but suggesting there were no guns to be confiscated forms no part of that. Approximately 650,000 guns were collected and destroyed. — andrewk
Ah, I see. So you were merely being pedantic,and your point was trivial — S
, and you either misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted what I was saying. — S
I meant what would be a proposed enforceable law in the country for which I would want it added to the law books. It would already be an enforceable law elsewhere. That's where the evidence comes from. — S
The problem was more than that. Enforceable is not the same as enforced. I want the two together. — S
And who do you think is arguing against that, if anyone? — S
yet the only one of the 'things below' that mentioned 'ratio' was the one that I had already said was the first time you did it, and none of them related to the disputed claim about attendance at crime scenes.I am so sure that I had posted all of those things below.... — Sir2u
Learn to read. — Sir2u
you do not understand English very well. — Sir2u
Could you just remind me exactly what accusations you were making about attempted bullying?I took it for granted that you knew how to read. — Sir2u
As you know, that's not how things work on a philosophy forum. The onus is on the person making a claim to justify it.My original statement stands until someone can prove it to be false. — Sir2u
In the instance to which you are referring, my use of 'that that ' was a mistake. I was careless when typing that sentence. I either didn't notice that I had typed the word twice, or I did but mixed it up with a sentence a few lines earlier where the doubling was used intentionally and correctly.Be careful using "that that" in sentences, S gets upset and pulls out his dictionary and some webpages about it. — Sir2u
You wrote the following in response to my saying that your direct reply to my question about a ratio in the post to which I was responding was the first time you had directly addressed my question and mentioned 'ratio':
I am so sure that I had posted all of those things below.... — Sir2u
yet the only one of the 'things below' that mentioned 'ratio' was the one that I had already said was the first time you did it. — andrewk
Could you just remind exactly what accusations you were making about attempted bullying? — andrewk
As you know, that's not how things work on a philosophy forum. The onus is on the person making a claim to justify it. — andrewk
In the instance to which you are referring, my use of 'that that ' was a mistake. I was careless when typing that sentence. I either didn't notice that I had typed the word twice, or I did but mixed it up with a sentence a few lines earlier where the doubling was used intentionally and correctly. — andrewk
It appears that it is actually not at all painful to admit that one is wrong sometimes. — andrewk
An armed society is a normal society. Society without arms don’t last very long.
But whether we elect a few people to do the actual arm bearing, or whether each of us are made to bear them ourselves personally, which in my opinion, and that of many others, most others I should say, is tedious, risky, economically redundant, and a terrible burden, is apparently a matter of debate.
I personally have to go against the argument and say that an armed society is not any more polite than an unarmed one, and such business is best left to the state and mercenaries, while we citizens indulge in higher activities like art and philosophy. — unforeseen
An armed society is a normal society. Society without arms don’t last very long. — unforeseen
This looks like trolling, — S
With regard to firearms, the United Kingdom is not generally an armed society. Our citizens, criminals, and police are generally unarmed in that respect. And yet, since this has been the case, we've stuck around, and it is no coincidence that gun crime is exceptionally low here in comparison with other places, and there's no good reason to believe that we won't last very long as a result of these circumstances. That's balderdash. — S
I wasn't sure you were being serious with that question. Did you genuinely not see what I did there? — S
Or are you just yanking my chain because my sentence was incomplete? — S
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.