But “illegalizing” drugs does work in some cases. I don’t hear about many Quaalude addictions anymore… — Mikie

It works against specific drugs, but because the root causes aren't addressed it's a matter of time before the next one comes along. The problem never truly gets solved.

Yes, which is why I dedicated an entire thread to it here. — Mikie

From that thread...

Suicides, drug overdoses, mass shootings. They call these “deaths of despair.”

People talk about mental health, and that’s true. It is indeed about mental health.

What’s also true is the widespread production and availability of opiates and guns. — Mikie

Literally the first thing you say.

So - in a discussion about the state of the nation's mental health (in the broad sense), you think it's fine to immediately remind everyone that the availability of guns is also a very big factor.

So why, in a discussion about gun control, is it not OK to remind everyone that mental health (in the broad sense) is also a major factor.

This is essentially the problem with modern politics in a nutshell. the only reason you don't want to talk about mental health is because that what the NRA (the baddies) talk about so that means you mustn't.

Just like if Trump says it a Lab leak, it must not be. If the Republicans oppose a war, the left have to be for it. If the right are opposed to lockdowns (for their own selfish reasons) then lockdowns must be our saviour...

We've got to get out of this stupid knee-jerk polemicism. Yes, the NRA use the mental health angle. Of course they do, they're going to use anything which promotes their agenda, they're not going to only select those things which are false (because they're the bad guys and bad guys always lie). Some things they say are going to be perfectly valid because they're not morons (evil, perhaps - but not stupid).

It's no good avoiding ground simply because they've taken it, it just makes your arguments look weak, like you can't concede even a millimetre of your opponent's arguments lest that millimetre is enough to destroy yours. But it won't be.

since other countries don’t have the mass shootings we do, despite the same problems with “mental health,” we should be emphasizing that. — Mikie

I agree, but the means by which it is emphasised matters. simply making the claims you've made about the US's outlier status are solid and no doubt effective. Insinuating that anyone talking about mental health is associated with NRA "talking points" just makes you look weak and doesn't help the argument at all.

We were talking about theory of law and the 4 leading theories aren't compelling to me in any way. I agree with Marx that an important part of law is driven by economic forces. The ability to incorporate, allowing for profit purposes, extending free speech and the entire field of financial law etc. are in my view all examples of that. I don't agree with much else there.

At the same time there are also still considerations of morality embedded in law (albeit becoming more and more remote), which I believe primarily stem, ultimately, from empathy. But this shouldn't be confused with natural or divine rights, because my view is they arise from the relationships we have with each other, instead of being intrinsic. Natural law just commits the naturalistic fallacy and divine law is basically the same. Whether natural or God-given: potatoes.

The positivist approach doesn't convince because I do believe in civil disobedience being lawful as protecting a higher norm under circumstances. Again, how we reach moral intuitions somehow informs, or should inform us, when laws are unjust and should be disregarded. But from a practical point of view legal positivism certainly is the simplest and most straightforward approach and answers the pertinent questions most of the time.

Finally, realist theory of law. Well, that's just a confused jumble to me which has nothing to say about the underlying principles of law.

So, to sum up, I don't have an integrated and consistent theory of law but I know very well what it isn't.

An anarchist who whines about his rights. Who do you think will protect your rights?

But then you sell your own and anyone else’s authority to the next political campaign. — NOS4A2

This is why a constitution with stable laws is so important. It is a check against what may happen as the result of the next political campaign. It is not a perfect instrument, but in an imperfect world it is the best we have devised.

To argue that only those in power get to make rules is absurd. — NOS4A2

Once again this points to the importance of stable laws. Those in power cannot do whatever they want and cannot make whatever rules they want. And if they attempt to they may lose their power in the next campaign.

Like it or not you live with other people. Your interests do not outweigh theirs. It is the role of government to find and maintain a balance of competing interests. In practice it is far from perfect. Do you have a better solution?

Your insistence on controlling people and restricting their rights ... — NOS4A2

You may not think it necessary for anyone to exert control over you, and perhaps it is true, but that does not mean there is no reason to control the actions of others. One important reason for this is to protect your rights.

Thanks for the summary.

I do not believe rights are conferred by god or nature, which is absurd. Rights can only be conferred by men. But the idea that only man in his official or government form can confer rights is equally absurd.

We have tried law, compulsion and authoritarianism of various kinds to develop some sort of moral fiber and the results are nothing to be proud of. But since one cannot intervene in someone else’s life all of the time, and since one must have some idea of when and for what reasons one should intervene in another’s life, one must formulate principles on the matter. I prefer natural law and natural right because they take into account human nature and justice.

If I watch a swallow build a nest and lay some eggs I come to understand that he is doing what swallows do. Since it is in his nature to do this for the sake of his survival, and since he is not harming anything else, I afford him the right to build his nest and lay his eggs, and for the same reasons, to defend them if necessary. For these reasons I do not destroy his nest and steal his eggs, and believe he has every right to defend his nest and eggs if I were to do so. It is from these reasons that I would not dull his beak in the off chance he pokes someone’s eye out.

Observations of nature can inform one’s judgement and principles far better than any observations of law or constitution, in my opinion.

You make rules for family. Very good. You can govern your own household. Except it doesn’t follow that you or anyone else ought to have the same authority of over people who are not your kin. — NOS4A2

The same principle applies, whether to my family or anyone else. Just because they’re my family doesn’t give me the right to “govern” them any more than anyone else. Either it’s just or unjust.

rule of some people over others, what with politicians with constituents in the millions. — NOS4A2

Yes we all know your tired, boring views on majoritarianism and general hatred of democracy in general. Has nothing to do with me.

restricting their rights — NOS4A2

(1) Rights are made up. (2) Rights being restricted isn’t the issue— the issue is whether doing so is just.

Gun “rights” don’t exist any more than the right to drive a car. Except there’s training involved in driving a car.

You participate in the charades of the greatest monopolies known to history, and advocate for corporatism of the worst kind. — NOS4A2

Says the guy who voted for, and has passionately defended, Donald Trump at every turn. :rofl:

Hard pass on your paranoia delusions. Read more Ayn Rand and keep trying.

An anarchist who whines about his rights. Who do you think will protect your rights?

Certainly not you. Certainly not the government. Neither of us can name one right in the Bill of Rights that has not been violated. So how can you trust that they will protect your rights?

It works against specific drugs, but because the root causes aren't addressed it's a matter of time before the next one comes along. The problem never truly gets solved. — Tzeentch

The problem of quaalude addictions certainly was solved. Banning or heavily regulating guns could work too, as they do everywhere else in the world. Sure, people could use knives or whatever — but that’s not the topic. The topic is guns— which is why we have the number of mass SHOOTINGS that we do.

Do you not see mass shootings as a problem?
If you do think it’s a problem, what is the solution?
If it’s vague aspirations about solving the problem of mental health, then we’re going in circles. If you want to discuss sensible gun control measures, by all means give your ideas.

If you have no ideas on this issue, then stop with the NRA diversions. Not interested.

Yes we all know your tired, boring views on majoritarianism and general hatred of democracy in general. Has nothing to do with me.

Maybe you didn’t get the gist but your continuous invoking of democracy is a trite piece of propaganda to disguise your deep-seated authoritarianism. That much is obvious.

If you have no ideas on this issue, then stop with the NRA diversions. Not interested. — Mikie

It's funny you're reacting with such hostility to the suggestion that mental health is an important aspect to this problem.

Top-notch tribalism.

Carry on.

So why, in a discussion about gun control, is it not OK to remind everyone that mental health (in the broad sense) is also a major factor. — Isaac

Because it’s mostly disingenuous when the topic is gun control. If it’s not, then yes, I repeatedly acknowledge the obvious point that people driven to kill people is a problem.

Insinuating that anyone talking about mental health is associated with NRA "talking points" just makes you look weak and doesn't help the argument at all. — Isaac

But it is an NRA talking point. Given what I know about Tzeentch, it’s no coincidence that this is the angle he wants to emphasize. I don’t buy “hey I’m just asking questions about mental health” nonsense for a second. If you do, then have at it.

Given what I know about Tzeentch, it’s no coincidence that this is the angle he wants to emphasize. — Mikie

Go on then, what do you believe that you know about me? :chin:

take into account human nature — NOS4A2

An interpretation of human nature you mean. A fairly sick one, too.

deep-seated authoritarianism — NOS4A2

Says the Trump voting corporatist. Maybe Freud was on to something… :chin:

Ayn Rand fails once again. Keep trying.

hostility — Tzeentch

Not hostility, but impatience. Impatience with NRA talking points about “mental health” being spewed disingenuously on a thread about gun control, to avoid talking about gun control.

We get it: no gun control measures, because the “real” issue is mental health. Carry on.

Go on then, what do you believe that you know about me? — Tzeentch

You’re right, it’s just a complete coincidence that someone who continuously spews libertarian ideology just happens to want to talk about the “mental health” factor on a thread about gun control.

I’m sure you’re sincere. You’re fooling yourself, but that’s OK.

Sean Hannity wanting to talk about Hillary’s emails on a thread should Trump’s crimes is also just good faith questioning as well.

You’re right, it’s just a complete coincidence that someone who continuously spews libertarian ideology just happens to want to talk about the “mental health” factor on a thread about gun control. — Mikie

I don't have particularly strong opinions on gun control in America, since I don't live in America.

How exactly are concerns over mental health incompatible with libertarianism again?

I don't have particularly strong opinions on gun control in America, since I don't live in America. — Tzeentch

But you have an interest in American mental health? Why America? Why not Argentina or Japan?

Oh yes, it’s because the topic is mass shootings, of which America is an outlier. Not an outlier in mental health issues, as has been shown. Given this, a truly impartial observer’s first question would be, “Why does America have so many mass shootings?”

Then maybe the 400 million guns and the fact that anyone can get their hands on one would be of interest to them. In which case they’d say, “Why does the US have so many guns and such lax gun regulations?”

That would be genuine discussion.

But you have an interest in American mental health huh? — Mikie

Sure. Psychology has always been an interest of mine.

Given this, a truly impartial observer’s first question would be, “Why does America have so many mass shootings?” — Mikie

Well, I never claimed I was a "truly impartial observer" - I just asked a question about mental health and why the subject seemed always conspicuously absent from these discussions, and was treated to your tirades.

Besides, why are you concerning yourself with what kind of questions I "should" be asking?

If you're not interested in what I bring to the discussion, no one is forcing you to reply.

It's a bit ironic you aim your accusations of insincerity at me.

This is essentially the problem with modern politics in a nutshell. the only reason you don't want to talk about mental health is because that what the NRA (the baddies) talk about so that means you mustn't. — Isaac

This hits the nail on the head, really.

Certainly not the government. Neither of us can name one right in the Bill of Rights that has not been violated. So how can you trust that they will protect your rights? — NOS4A2

I trust that they will protect my rights because they do in fact protect my rights and yours as well, albeit imperfectly. If you cannot see that it is because you are blinded by your ideology. The saying:

The best is the enemy of the good.

holds true in this case. Good laws are better than no laws. The goal should be to improve them not do away with them because they are less perfect.

You cannot live in society and not live according to its laws. You can work to change its laws, but cannot live as if you are above or free of the law.

It's funny you're reacting with such hostility to the suggestion that mental health is an important aspect to this problem. — Tzeentch

If you have been paying attention to what he has actually said I find this accusation incomprehensible. He has stated several times that he thinks mental health is a serious problem that should be addressed.

The question under discussion is gun control. Mental health is certainly an issue in the gun control debate, but the problem is the attempt to shift focus away from guns, to take gun control off the table and focus only on mental health.

If you have been paying attention to what he has actually said I find this accusation incomprehensible. — Fooloso4

I think if you had paid attention then the thin-veiled contempt wouldn't have gone over your head.

I think if you had paid attention then the thin-veiled contempt wouldn't have gone over your head. — Tzeentch

These arguments often get heated and personal. Where did he express contempt for the claim that mental health is important?

With regard to thinly veiled contempt, your accusation that what is at issue went over my head did not.

There's a mental health problem to be sure. But it's society that's mentally ill, and the symptoms are the perverted priorities that place superficial notions of freedom above the protection of life. The cure are laws that rebalance these priorities in a rational manner. So yes, address this mental illness by getting this mad love for guns under control.

They do not protect your rights, and the ongoing attempt to restrict your rights is evidence of this.

I am down for any law that is just and protects the rights of the individual. Laws that protect the state, its own interests, or some other interest group are unjust and do not protect the rights of the individual.

You own private property because that right is protected by the government. You are able to speak freely because the government protects you by limiting its own power.

I am down for any law that is just and protects the rights of the individual. — NOS4A2

Sometimes, in order to protect the rights of an individual constraints are put on the rights of other individuals. If you are a business owner, for example, you cannot hire children to work in a sweatshop.

Laws that protect the state, its own interests, or some other interest group are unjust and do not protect the rights of the individual. — NOS4A2

That is an overly broad, vague, and simplistic generalization, intended to pit the government against the individual. The interests of the state are not necessarily antithetical to the interests of the individual. The example, chosen to stay on topic, is gun control.

The self-centered, myopic view is that gun control violates individual rights. Does it? The majority of people favor gun control. The prevalence of guns violates their right to life. Right now, judging by government inaction, the state and powerful special interest groups such as the NRA are aligned with the interests of individuals who oppose gun control.

Suppose legislation is passed on gun control. Whose side would the government be on? On both sides there are the interests of individuals, but the interests and rights of more individuals would be served by limiting the right to sell and own and carry guns.

Setting up the state as the enemy of individual rights is nothing more than crass and empty rhetoric.

The majority of people favor gun control. — Fooloso4

It's the details where things go awry. Over 300,000,000 guns out there, how would one start to deal with the sheer numbers? And they last so long, they are so well made.

When I was fourteen I stole a handgun from a mafia member. This was 1951, and the gun was a Colt semi-automatic in .380 caliber, dating from about 1915 or so. Its lands and grooves were pretty much gone from considerable firing, but it was definitely still usable. I gave it to my father a few years later and it disappeared sometime before 1968. It's still out there somewhere, untraceable and lethal.

Personally, I would like to see assault weapons banned, and that might be enforceable to some extent due to records being kept. But the political will is lacking.

Well, I never claimed I was a "truly impartial observer" - I just asked a question about mental health and why the subject seemed always conspicuously absent from these discussions, and was treated to your tirades — Tzeentch

“Just asked a question.” Yes, the question every NRA member, bought politician, and gun not happen to raise every time gun control is brought up. If that’s “conspicuously absent,” you’re living in complete ignorance.

“Tirades.”

So should universal background checks and gun training be required before buying an AR-15 or not? Let’s make it concrete.

I am down for any law that is just and protects the rights of the individual. — NOS4A2

Cool, like the right to life- via not getting shot.

Laws that protect the state, its own interests, or some other interest group [like the NRA] are unjust and do not protect the rights of the individual. — NOS4A2

Absolutely. So good, I’m glad we’re both in favor of petitioning the state to protect an individual’s right to life, in this case via control control measures.

That story could have turned out very differently! It makes me wonder about what happened leading up to the story that brought together a fourteen year old, a mafioso, and a frequently fired stolen gun.