has nothing to do with profit, which is financial gain. — Xtrix

No the fuck it isn't, I just gave you the damn definitions. That's all there is to it.

I tend to agree with Xtrix here. You seem to have your own idiosyncratic way of defining these terms. I mean, profits are what motivate living things? Not food and water and sex and shelter? Seems strange that an ant gives a damn about money. But obviously you're meaning profit in some other way. But why not just say that?
Maybe I'm missing something!

No the fuck it isn't, I just gave you the damn definitions. That's all there is to it. — Garrett Travers

a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.

(Simple google search.)

Again, if you wish to define "profit" as "any gain whatsoever," OK. That's your call. But that's not what I was referring to, clearly. You responded to me. If you want to take "profit" in the sense I mean (the above definition), and object on the grounds that "profits are gains and, thus, everything we do is for profit in this sense" -- then make that clear, so I can simply ignore a completely off-topic remark.

You seem to have your own idiosyncratic way of defining these terms. I mean, profits are what motivate living things? Not food and water and sex and shelter? Seems strange that an ant gives a damn about money. But obviously you're meaning profit in some other way. But why not just say that?
Maybe I'm missing something! — John McMannis

You are missing something, and that is exactly what I said. The definitions of the term "profit" encompass all forms of individual benefit, period end of story.To place profit only within the domain of finance is a reduction fallacy, plain and simple. There is nothing idiosyncratic about defining terms. There is plenty idiotic about denying definitions. Here's the definitions for you to review so that you can change your opinion now:

a valuable return : GAIN
2: the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions
especially : the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost
3: net income usually for a given period of time
4: the ratio of profit for a given year to the amount of capital invested or to the value of sales
5: the compensation accruing to entrepreneurs for the assumption of risk in business enterprise as distinguished from wages or rent

to be of service or advantage : AVAIL
2: to derive benefit : GAIN
3: to make a profi

Understand now how language works? Or, is it too idiosyncratic to apprehend?

Again, if you wish to define "profit" as "any gain whatsoever," OK. That's your call. But that's not what I was referring to, clearly. You responded to me. If you want to take "profit" in the sense I mean (the above definition), and object on the grounds that "profits are gains and, thus, everything we do is for profit in this sense" -- then make that clear, so I can simply ignore a completely off-topic remark. — Xtrix

The definition doesn't care how reductive you are about it's usage, you'll need to actually clarify that you are ONLY speaking about monetary profit, so that such context is available to me. Otherwise, what you say doesn't make sense. To be clear: Yes, that is exactly what I mean, and such is consistent with both biologically objective phenomena, as well as both definitions. To engage with me on the topic will require that assessment to be integrated into your position, or you are being reductive. If you have a perspective that is true that I am not considering, it becomes my duty to integrate THAT bit of info. That's how philosophy works.

The definitions of the term "profit" encompass all forms of individual benefit, period end of story. — Garrett Travers

No, it doesn't. It's one definition, and not the one which I used and which you responded to. I was using "profit" in the financial sense, which was clear from context.

Notice the definitions you cite all pertain to finances, except for the broadest one possible which, for some reason, you've convinced yourself is the definition.

So, to recap: profits are, to use your definitions:

the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions
especially : the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost

Which is exactly what was meant by my post here:

The US has far more guns than nearly any other country, per capita. The gun manufacturing industry, with their propaganda and lobbying, is behind it. Which only means, as usual, the valuing of profits over people is at the core of this rot.

Same with tobacco, same with sugar, same with fossil fuels, same with opioids, same with hundreds of other examples. When you live in a socioeconomic system that chooses to value money and property over everything else, these issues are mere symptoms. — Xtrix

Which you decided to injected yourself into, invoking your own preferred definition of "profit = gain of any kind." Disingenuous at best. But mostly just confused.

No, it doesn't. It's one definition, and not the one which I used and which you responded to. I was using "profit" in the financial sense, which was clear from context. — Xtrix

This is impermissable ignorance, I posted the definitions in the message you just quoted. So, I'm talking to a child.

The definition doesn't care how reductive you are about it's usage, you'll need to actually clarify that you are ONLY speaking about monetary profit, so that such context is available to me — Garrett Travers

This is what I meant by "disingenuous," above.

If you read that post and thought, "By 'profits over people' is he referring to monetary gain, or any gain whatsoever?" ... then the issue isn't with me.

or you are being reductive. — Garrett Travers

You really struggle with meanings, unfortunately. Using the most common use of "profit," when discussing businesses (gun manufacturers), is not reductionism. It's using one definition of the word. I'm not denying there are other meanings.

That's how philosophy works. — Garrett Travers

And I'm supposed to be convinced that you know how philosophy "works"? Given the above behavior, forgive me if I'm less than interested.

No, it doesn't. It's one definition, and not the one which I used and which you responded to. I was using "profit" in the financial sense, which was clear from context.
— Xtrix

This is impermissable ignorance, I posted the definitions in the message you just quoted. — Garrett Travers

Yes, you posted the definitions, and I'm telling you that the definition used in the original post (the one you responded to initially) was this one (in bold):

a valuable return : GAIN
2: the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions
especially : the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost
3: net income usually for a given period of time
4: the ratio of profit for a given year to the amount of capital invested or to the value of sales
5: the compensation accruing to entrepreneurs for the assumption of risk in business enterprise as distinguished from wages or rent

Which should be clear to anyone reading what I wrote. Again, if you thought "maybe he means 'profit as gain of any kind'", then that's your own misunderstanding. In that case, try to comprehend what others are saying before jumping in with non sequiturs.

a valuable return : GAIN
2: the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions
especially : the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost
3: net income usually for a given period of time
4: the ratio of profit for a given year to the amount of capital invested or to the value of sales
5: the compensation accruing to entrepreneurs for the assumption of risk in business enterprise as distinguished from wages or rent

to be of service or advantage : AVAIL
2: to derive benefit : GAIN
3: to make a profi

Understand now how language works? Or, is it too idiosyncratic to apprehend? — Garrett Travers

Uh, most of those definitions pertain to money. So yeah, I think choosing one of them and claiming it's the REAL definition and then expecting everyone to know what you're talking about is just stupid.

But you're clearly a child, so I'll leave you to it.

Which you decided to injected yourself into, invoking your own preferred definition of "profit = gain of any kind." Disingenuous at best. But mostly just confused. — Xtrix

:fire: :100:

Uh, most — John McMannis

You see how not ALL? You see seeing that detail you're leaving out for some reason?

But you're clearly a child, so I'll leave you to it. — John McMannis

The child to whom you've not presented an argument, but have arbitrarily limited the definition of a term to your own admission? You seeing how that's stupid?

:fire: :100: — John McMannis

:rofl:

Which should be clear to anyone reading what I wrote. Again, if you thought "maybe he means 'profit as gain of any kind'", then that's your own misunderstanding. In that case, try to comprehend what others are saying before jumping in with non sequiturs. — Xtrix

No, like I said, if you are using a delimited definition, it is your job to explain that. Not my job to understand all definitions of a term that apply in accordance with your unexplained usage. I've been clear, you haven't, and only people like the guy kissing your ass and also reducing the definition to only mean what he wants it to mean will be willing to say that you've been clear.

And yet no one I know has ever known a person who was murdered, much less who was shot. What do you make of that? 55 years in this crime ridden city, and never even been pickpocketed. — Hanover

The States get a bad rap. I have not lived in the US. I have spent my life in Canada. I had a friend from high school get murdered with a pair of scissors while delivering a pizza. He was 22 and the guy that killed him didn't want to pay, so stabbed him in the throat with the scissors. After 10 minutes someone else saw the pizza guy bleeding out in the yard and called the ambulance. My friend was dead before they arrived. He left behind a 2 year old daughter. A classmate of mine from junior high was fished out of the Fraser river. She had been found tied to a chair and had been tortured to death. I always felt she had been dealt a shit hand, even in junior high. she wasn't 25 when they fished her out. In 2015 i worked on a chest stabbing, same part of town. He was also dead before he arrived in the ER. Not one died from a firearm.

I have been stabbed on two separate occasions, each time only once, in my right thigh. Both times while going to start the car outside the same bar in February, nearly one year apart to the day. I was the designated driver. I did not recognize either guy that stabbed me and never bothered to pursue it further. I have had hockey sticks broken over my knee, and have a lovely scar in my hairline from a baseball bat. I have been in knife fights, bat fights, and sword fights. I have not killed anyone, but I have made a few bleed while defending myself, once an attacker realizes you intend to also play rough they tend to go away. I have slept with a shotgun beside my bed, with 7 in the pipe, and knife under my pillow, knowing that I may be called to use both before the night ended. Canada is peaceful in the brochures, out in the northern communities...not so much. I don't know anyone that has been murdered with a gun, or even shot, except a single hunting accident.

So yeah, I say the States get a bad rap. All of us know how to kill each other.

The funny part is that I did not realize that I had a rough upbringing until I was 23 years old. I found out from watching TV: there was an injury list on the right side of the screen with a narrator reading off the list. To me the list was nothing special, respectable sure, but not impressive. It could have been anyone of my friends growing up, I had had more injuries, but still, whoever the TV was talking about had done some shit too. Then a picture showed up on the left, some hockey enforcer, I don't follow sports much as I am not a spectator type. Anyway, turns out the list was that dude's lifetime injury list. His entire life of injuries could have been anyone of my high school friends. So yeah, I guess we grew up rough. Been a long time since I have really thought about it.

Sorry to hear this.

All of these attacks happened in Canada?

Yes, Yukon and B.C. Sleeping with the Shotgun was in the Northwest Territories. And a hiccup or two in Alberta, but that was mostly posturing type stuff. Leaves a mark I guess.

I have property in one of the roughest parts of the UK. It's like a different world.

Would imagine it would be much worse if guns were legal?

What is the primary reason the murder rate in the United States is almost 5 times that of the United Kingdom?

Not to sound facetious, but the primary reason is probably that the United States is far more violent than the United Kingdom...the answer you are looking for is "culture" (amongst other things). It is most likely that our culture in America leads to an allowance and appreciation of more violence than is typically seen in United Kingdom.

I notice one of your choices was "gun law". Well "culture" (the beliefs, customs, traditions, etc., of a people) is the social basis for a multitude of statistics that apply to a country, including the statistic of murder rates. Culture affects the philosophy of a people, which in-turn affects the ethics of a people, which in-turn affects the laws that are created and voted for (in a democracy) by the people, including gun laws.

Not necessarily. We had access to all sorts of guns, however, we also knew how to use them, so no one did. Choosing to hurt someone, self defense or otherwise, is very different than choosing to kill them. Murder is rare (despite what the news would have us believe) because most people don't have the stomach for it. This is further supported by the fact that nearly all murder convictions arise from a confession. When it does happen, the one that did the killing feels terrible about it, regrets it nearly instantly, and almost always turns themselves in to the police and confesses the crime. Hardly the act of the "stone cold killer".

Also the legality of a gun is relatively irrelevant. For example: I am currently at work and here it is 1 am. Gun stores are closed, so legally purchasing a gun is not currently possible, from a store. I could still likely get one in a few hours, legally, by looking online for a private sale. Legally they would take my license number down and I would sign a bill of sale for the gun and away I go with my gun. Chances are, at this time of day, an eyebrow or two might be raised, however I could probably explain that away as being a shift worker and this is the best time for me to buy anything, gun or otherwise. However, If I elect to go illegal, I could likely find something in under 2 hours, complete with a reasonable amount of ammunition. They would not ask for my license, or name, and I would not ask for theirs. It would be a cash exchange and relatively untraceable. All things considered, the illegal transaction is slightly more annoying as I have no local contacts for illegal weapons, but otherwise, nothing very exciting. Much like buying anything else; you like it, you buy it, if not, see what else is available, or walk away. The point is, if you want something; guns, drugs, whatever, you usually don't have to look very hard for it. Just have money and start looking, it will come to you.

The vast majority of gun crimes are not committed by the legal owners of the guns, which is why gun control laws are odd to me. It is a lot like restricting access to Codeine because people are dying of Fentanyl overdoses. I don't really see the connection.

Not to sound facetious, but the primary reason is probably that the United States is far more violent than the United Kingdom...the answer you are looking for is "culture" (amongst other things). It is most likely that our culture in America leads to an allowance and appreciation of more violence than is typically seen in United Kingdom. — chiknsld

Ultimately you are right, as even if "gun laws" are the difference, it is culture that has lead to the difference in gun laws.

Also the legality of a gun is relatively irrelevant. For example: I am currently at work and here it is 1 am. Gun stores are closed, so legally purchasing a gun is not currently possible, from a store. I could still likely get one in a few hours, legally, by looking online for a private sale. Legally they would take my license number down and I would sign a bill of sale for the gun and away I go with my gun. Chances are, at this time of day, an eyebrow or two might be raised, however I could probably explain that away as being a shift worker and this is the best time for me to buy anything, gun or otherwise. However, If I elect to go illegal, I could likely find something in under 2 hours, complete with a reasonable amount of ammunition. They would not ask for my license, or name, and I would not ask for theirs. It would be a cash exchange and relatively untraceable. All things considered, the illegal transaction is slightly more annoying as I have no local contacts for illegal weapons, but otherwise, nothing very exciting. Much like buying anything else; you like it, you buy it, if not, see what else is available, or walk away. The point is, if you want something; guns, drugs, whatever, you usually don't have to look very hard for it. Just have money and start looking, it will come to you. — Book273

I think this goes to what @Bitter Crank was saying, that there are so many guns in the USA now that even if they were outlawed there would be no real effect in the near future. Compared to the UK where almost nobody can get hold of a gun.

delimited definition, it is your job to explain that. — Garrett Travers

No it isn’t, because it was perfectly clear from context. You miscomprehended it. A possible reason for misreading it is your adherence to objectivism, which you’re quite zealous about.

I’m well aware that within that particular worldview, capitalism is seen as the best possible system for the flourishing of a human being, and thus “profit” in the monetary sense is taken as simply one outgrowth of the broader definition, which is “gain” from productive, creative work.

This philosophy sees a human being as objects with needs to satisfy, as psychologically egoist, and claim that human beings can guide their greed with reason.

I disagree with how objectivists conceptualize happiness, and how they conceptualize the human being/human nature. And you know this. So you also know, very well, that I wouldn’t be using “profit” in this way — even leaving the contextual cues aside.

That gets to the heart, I believe, of this odd interchange.

Culture affects the philosophy of a people, which in-turn affects the ethics of a people, which in-turn affects the laws that are created and voted for (in a democracy) by the people, including gun laws. — chiknsld

Well said. I think this is an important point to always bear in mind when discussing these social issues.

It’s the other side of the factor I mentioned earlier, which is the influence of business.

But then the question is: who influences culture?

I think the right question, given how so many people have pinned the statistic in the OP to guns, is this:

What would happen if all countries in the world had the same (lax) gun laws as the US? I have a feeling the US murder rates will be rather low (comparatively).

I don't think that heavily white or East Asian countries would be very homicidal even with very relaxed gun laws. Those demographics, on average, just aren't very homicidal to begin with.

Does northern New England have very strict gun laws? Because AFAIK it's not that homicidal. But what works in its favor is that it's much whiter than the rest of the US is.

I don't think that heavily white or East Asian countries would be very homicidal even with very relaxed gun laws. Those demographics, on average, just aren't very homicidal to begin with.

Does northern New England have very strict gun laws? Because AFAIK it's not that homicidal. But what works in its favor is that it's much whiter than the rest of the US is. — Xanatos

We could go back to ancient times when swords, daggers, hammers, axes, falxes, etc. were used. Which countries had thr highest violence rates? All, presumably.

Sure, when our ancestors were cavemen, things were much more violent, presumably. AFAIK, even Europe in the Middle Ages was much, much more homicidal than present-day Europe is. Possibly comparable to present-day Latin America or 1990s Russia.

Well, I would've liked a comparative analysis vis-à-vis violence.

World's most dangerous countries 2022, by homicide rate

El Salvador, Mexico and Venezuela tend to be always the most dangerous countries. What surprised me, it is the appearance of Jamaica.

Interesting. So we're looking at violence in general, as opposed to gun-related violence.

Responding to your year old post...

Seems like you might want to find some new bars to hang out in.