Since you start out with the same kind of attitude that I was urging you to stop with I have no reason to continue wasting my time on your ego. You have been given answers and you refuse to stop using biases and fallacies. I went to this forum to get away from having to argue against populist rhetoric. — Christoffer

OK, I will be polite to you.
Please explain why the response I gave to your solution to gun crime is not worth talking about or irrelevant.

Thank you.

Your phrase of the day seems to be ad hominems, nice one.

It doesn't take much to understand the basic concepts of dialectics and dialectic discourse, but do you think that if you went out on the street and asked random people what "dialectic" is, I can guarantee you that very few even knows what it is. You are trying to argue that people know dialectic methods without training when the closest is that they might accidentally do a dialectic, but do not have it as routine. — Christoffer

I actually was finished with this discussion, but when I got to work this morning I decide to do some investigation. Where I work we have teaching software that allows the teacher to create local network chats and polls. The polls can be done anonymously so students feel free to express themselves. I set a task for the ninth graders.

"In one sentence explain how you would fix the country's violence problem"

As I explained, I live in a country that was know as the murder capital of the world and many still think it is. There are very few guns here and not many people can afford to buy one and pay the high cost of the registration of the gun. There are strict laws controlling who can buy guns. Most of the weapons are in the hands of the army, police and criminal gangs and no one is really sure who has most.

Out of 75 9th graders these are the answers in order of popularity.

1. Teach the gang members how to live without harming people. Show them what they need to know to get a job. 58 votes
2. Get more good cops and take away the guns by force. 10 votes
3. Just shoot the fuckers that have guns. 5 votes This is the actual phrase used by 3, the others were not so polite.
4. How the hell should I know, that is what politicians are for. 1
5. I don't care, when I graduate i am getting the hell out of here. 1 vote

Now if it is not possible for people to solve problems without your fancy shmancy dialectic tools, how the hell did they come up with the same answer as you. Either they are just as good at thinking as you, or you are no better than they are.

Do you know what hydraulic resistance is? It is a part of your everyday life. You could not explain it to anyone could you? When you drive a car or go the gym you know how to use the machines and what they do without knowing how these things do what they do. Not knowing the official terminology does not mean that you cannot do something. People have a habit of figuring things out, that is how we evolved.

You are arguing in circles in order to just win any points you can, but what's your actual point, really? — Christoffer

I am not, as I have repeated so many times, trying to win anything. I do not come to do anything except entertain myself, reading and comment on some of the threads.

It's the same BS that populists are spreading around, undermining any kind of intellectual discussion and progress in favor of emotional outbursts from people with low education. Their perspective is extremely important, but this anti-intellectual BS is actually disgusting and disrespectful against those who actually put a lot of time and effort into learning. — Christoffer

So you spent all that money on a college degree and cannot get a job then come here and talk down to people as a time waster. You rant on about how others are not capable of doing what you do but at this point have failed to provide even a single piece of evidence that this is true.

Therefore, most common people don't have the methods needed for a dialectic method for knowledge.

In other terms:

X is dialectic understanding, Y is normal argumentative understanding. X leads to Z which is improved knowledge and better arguments, Y leads to A which is an argumentative emotional stalemate.
p1 X most likely leads to Z but does never lead to A.
p2 Y most likely leads to A but rarely lead to Z.
p3 X is common with those trained in argumentative methodology, Y is common with everyone else.

Therefore the probability of X being superior to reach Z is higher than that Y leads to Z and since X is more common with those trained in the methodology, it is lower in quantity than Y which is the rest.

It's a simple fact of probability. If you don't agree with the above probability, please feel free to counter it properly. The probability is a large scale probability, which means, in this case, that if a proper dialectic method is recommended to understand all nuances of a complex political issue, fewer people are able to reach a nuanced conclusion. — Christoffer

I have not seen things like this in sooooo many years, but I might still remember the basics. Have to think about it.

But seeing as you have brought up this wonderful topic, maybe you would care to show us your skills. Show us how you used this method to come to the conclusion that education was the method to solve the gun violence problem. Now I would hate for you to think that I am being abusive for asking this, but I really think I might remember more after a quick refresher course.

When I asked the kids how they had reached their conclusions they said that it was just common sense.

Apart from saying that I am naive here are a few others things that you have offered to support your case that education is the way to solve the problem of gun violence.

Maybe you could even look at how others answer to you,
Maybe people just don't care about answering to you because of how you write? I shouldn't, I mean, especially since I'm answering to a long post full of criticism... oh, the irony.
If you want respect and good behavior from others, you should lead by example.
As I read other answers to you, I'm not quite alone in thinking this way. Maybe that should be a hint to you, but you'll probably just ignore it.
Why do you think I point out that you seem to lack philosophical methodology knowledge? Because you don't show any of it.
You are totally unable to self-reflect upon your own writing. You just burst out emotional rants with no content.
You just have a total lack of insight into how you write to people. And even the end of that sentence is a mockery. It's a bullying mentality, like some insecure teenager trying to hit back at every chance they get.
I recommend that you study a bit more philosophy before you demand solutions in the way you do. You're acting like a child right now
But you don't seem to know much about these things? (Why does this statement have a question mark?)
No, you are certainly not a philosopher, that's for sure. — Christoffer

What do you call it when you use information that is not provable to try to make the other person in an discussion look silly so that you can win? I am sure that their is a name for it, but I just cannot remember.

And you judge people without knowing anything about them or their experiences in life and reality but can't entertain the thought and simple fact that people can both be trained in philosophy and have real experiences. — Christoffer

That looks like the sentence I was going to write to you. You judge people just by the way they write.

You've read my point and argument on knowledge of dialectic methodology and you read my point on what is the best solution in order to restrict guns. I'm still waiting for a response to those, worthy of a philosophical discussion. I will exclude any further nonsense rants from you and focus on that. Want to express your bullying populist attitude, go punch a pillow. — Christoffer

On your point and argument on knowledge of dialectic methodology, I think that you are very wrong to say that common people cannot do it. They might not know the name for it or even that they are doing it, but they do it. But I am sure that I have already said that.

And I did read your point on what is the best solution in order to restrict guns. I even answered it if you would take the time to read and stop blathering on about your freaking college education and how great you are and how naive other people are.

Unfortunately, common people don't have the tools to understand this on their own, but you can still not force laws beyond the democratic process. So the only thing that I can see is positive is to educate, to provide the information about this to the people so that they, after a while, stop defending their personal preferences in order to increase the quality of life within their nation. — Christoffer
— Sir2u

Don't put the common people down, a lot of us do understand the information. That is why they still refuse to vote for banning guns.
I stated a long time ago that one way to solve the problem is through education, changing the mentality of the people might change the feelings towards guns. But how long will this take and how successful will the education system be against family and street influences? And the biggest part of the gun problem is not the normal everyday guy in the street, it is the thugs, How do you educate them — Sir2u

I gave you the information you needed to continue with a dialectic discussion and you ignored it.

I think I gave you the most realistic answer. Educate and turn people in a democracy towards wanting strict gun laws. You can't do much else. — Christoffer

You closed the door and flatly refused to look any further. It is your answer or none. Does that sound familiar?

I've answered this long post and yet, after reading all of it, you have actually not said anything new at all. You repeat your earlier points without reading answers to them, I mean truly read them. You continue a bullying attitude which is the same kind of anti-intellectual nonsense that populists push over and over, and which I think is beneath discussions on philosophical forums. If you think I have low respect for common people outside of philosophy then no, I don't have low respect. But "common" people like you certainly question whether or not I should. — Christoffer

How about that, you must be reading my mind. Your rants about the dialect discussion were repetitive, uninformative, insulting and boring.

You were asked several questions which you completely ignored, which I think was rather rude of you.
You make sweeping claims about knowing how other people think and act, and when you were asked to provide evidence of this and other claims you made you either ignored it or gave some irrelevant answer to it.
You talk about how important it is to have knowledge to be able to have a dialectic discussion about a topic, but show no real knowledge about the gun problem in the USA.

So, if you would like to explain how my students came to the same conclusion you did without your training,
or if you would like to try to explain to me why my answer to your proposed solution is irrelevant,
or if you would try to explain to me your theory of how people actually came to the conclusion that everything is made of water,
or show us how you used your methods to reach your conclusions about the solution to gun violence,
then I will listen to you. But I will exclude any further nonsense rants from you including but not limited to professing the greatness of the dialectic method.

But before we close, I must say that I admire your writing, as an EASL person you write OK.

Yes it's amazing how destructive and disloyal to their country some politicians can be when trying to win power. We have that here at the moment. The opposition helped pass a bill, against the government's wishes, to allow seriously ill people in offshore immigration detention centres to come to Australia for treatment. The government, who claim the sole reason for their very harsh treatment of asylum seekers is to discourage people from setting out in boats from Indonesia to try to get here, is now blaring out to anybody who will listen that the passing of the bill has now made it easy for people-smugglers to get people into our country.

Firstly it's not true and secondly, even if it were, the last thing that should be done is advertise it to people smugglers.

All because they want to try to win a looming election by c;aiming to be 'tougher on illegal immigrants'.
:sad: — andrewk

Our problem is that all of the people are leaving because of the violence and Trump is getting pissed off about it.
The president keeps trying to convince everyone that crime, especially murder rates have dropped. According to his statistics they have, but a guy shot dead while driving a car should not count as a traffic accident.
Death from lead poisoning also seems to have gone up here, funny thing is that the people seem to be taking all the lead at one time.
Use of plastic bags and ropes to tie your hands to stop you from removing the bag seem to be a popular method of suicide recently as well. They say the instructions for tying your own hands can googled.
And no one is getting put in jail either.

Because regular people don't generally understand the concept of a dialectic discussion, they see any discussion between two opinions as an argument without end since both sides just clash without understanding the other or the self. It's also a ground for meta-ignorance. This is why I numerous times doubt your insight into philosophy since you never demonstrate that philosophical process in your writing. — Christoffer

What proof do you have that ordinary people, without a degree in philosophy, cannot understand the concept of a dialectic discussion. Through out history people have been doing this with absolutely no formal education. The way you talk it is as if these abilities are something that developed because of colleges. Lots of the greatest philosopher had little or no education at all. Thinking is something that can be and is developed by anyone that wants to develop their abilities and is possible without out going to the university. That is the BS of the universities sell so that you will pay their exorbitant fees.

Because you demand absolute solutions to very very complex problems. — Christoffer

It is a good idea to read all of the thread if you want to participate properly. I have not, as I explained to someone else, made any demands. You stated what you think was the solution and I pointed out some of the problems with your idea.

You either go by a totalitarian state-regulation to just ban guns, or you work with the people so that they understand the problems and understand why it's good for them as well. — Christoffer

Both of which have been discussed at length, the former idea causes too many problems and would be expensive. The latter is a long term project that would not fulfill today's needs.

If you have any other solution beside enforcing change and planting seeds for change, feel free to express it, but if you want simple answers, that is the naive route. — Christoffer

That s the only solution that I have ever offered, educate the people. But as I said earlier it will not work until the people have a reason to give up their guns. By reason I mean that possibly the feel safe without them, when do you think that will happen?

Because it has to do with philosophical discussions around justice and ethics — Christoffer

For some that claims to be so superior at thinking, that is very badly expressed. It has nothing to do with philosophical discussion around justice and ethics.

Let me help you to express it in a clearer way.

Because gun control has elements of MORALITY and ethics it can be discussed philosophically.

I think that sounds better, don't you?

Why is it not a philosophical question to have a discourse around that topic? Please elaborate on why it does not qualify. — Christoffer

I never said it was, I just wanted to find out how you would explain it. Bummer right.

Can you write any text without having an asshole tone to them? — Christoffer

Well I suppose I could try imitating your dickhead tone, but I don't think that I have enough of a stuck up snobbish attitude to pull it off. But I will try if you want.

Without a dialectical approach, there are only opinions, often with a meta-ignorant problem underneath. — Christoffer

Wow, so your opinions thoughts are correct because you use the dialectical approach. Where did you find all of the information that you used to come to these certified conclusions, I would love to see it. I think that you really need to go to the USA and offer you assistance in solving this problem. I don't think that they have anyone like you over there because this problem has been going on for years and years and no one has been able to come up with a solution.

People might have heard the word dialectic, but how many can have a dialectic discussion? — Christoffer

I don't know. I am not in the habit, as you seem to be, of testing everyone's ability to use their dialectic skills. How many times have you tried to have dialectic discussions with people in the street?

How many discussions have you heard between people which ended in both sides improving their own ideas or come to the conclusion that the other was right? I mean, truly changing for both sides? — Christoffer

Plenty, I work as a high school teacher. That is how we get kids to improve themselves sinse they took away our whips and bats.

Of course, most don't have a degree in philosophy. But without any insight into philosophy, what is even the point of being on this forum? — Christoffer

Well I could say that I am only here for the beer, but the pub closed with the old forum and I don't think anyone has figured out how to open a new one here.

I mean, to read is good, but to participate in discussions without being humble about their own knowledge in philosophy and instead rage on with pure speculative opinions, fallacies and biases, is to a degree not even recommended by the forum guidelines. — Christoffer

So you think that maybe if I quoted something from Socrates to support what I have said about gun control it would be more believable? Hmm, I will have to try that sometime. Or maybe if I continuously asked questions to provoke people to think but refused to admit I had any personal knowledge It would help my case. Reading about other peoples' way of thinking does not mean that you will be able to think like them. If that was the case I would be able to run circles around Witty.
While we are on the topic of peoples' knowledge about philosophy, did you ever figure out why those people came up with the idea that everything was made up of water?

If there's no effort to even learn some basic philosophy, why even bother? Then Twitter is probably a better platform for such rants. — Christoffer

Sinner, blasphemer, how dare you mention twatter and fartbook here. I hate those things with a passion that borders on murderous.

It's a cultural difference then since observations in my country are that companies and industries increasingly have pushed for philosophy training in leaders and philosophers consulting during problems, rather than just trying to figure things out themselves. It means they frame the problem the company is facing through the lens of philosophy in order to foreshadow the consequences of the solutions to the problems. They're also educating employees, especially in the tech industry and A.I. — Christoffer

Before I start searching for my old degrees, could you show me where some of these place are. More than 20 years is enough in teaching. With 22 years in industry before that I might think about moving on.

That are not the problems I'm talking about. But for example, figuring out the ethics of gun laws require quite a lot of philosophy in order to give a nuanced perspective to politicians and the people. — Christoffer

So they are not solving problems but giving opinions on whether thing would be moral or not. Why has no one ever thought of doing this before?

If a problem touches upon philosophical problems, why would those questions be left to those who work with systems to solve? It's like calling a plumber to fix the roof. — Christoffer

True, but there are not that many moral problems, most of them are technical. Most development companies have legal department that deal with anything dodgy, Maybe that is where they would work.

Because you don't have an answer, I don't, no one really has, which is my point. It's a philosophical dialectic with the aim of finding a solution. — Christoffer

I never said I had an answer, at least not one that would work as needed, but I did point out that a lot of these things have been discussed before and I have given the reasons why I doubt they would not work. I was not demand absolute solutions, but with all of your superior dialectic prowess I thought that maybe you would be the one to come up with the right answer. Seems not to do so.

I gave you a possible solution, you have answered nothing on the validity of the consequences of that solution and instead demand an absolute solution. It's once again, naive and almost childish as a demand. — Christoffer

You are repeating yourself.

I do not set myself higher than common people, I stated a fact that common people don't have dialectic methods to discuss something in order to reach a higher understanding of their own opinions. That is a simple epistemic fact which would be ridiculous to counter without proposing that common people would automatically know it without studying it. — Christoffer

And a simple epistemic fact should be easy for you to prove, so go ahead and do it. But before you try answering think about the people that developed dialectic methods, where did they study? How did they come up with the ideas if it is not possible without education?

Clues:
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/history/greek.html
https://www.britannica.com/topic/dialectic-logic

You are pretty far from being humble. You should really calm down and take a look at your own writing before judging others. — Christoffer

I never get excited by wishywashy discussions with people that think they are better than the rest just because they studied philosophy but know nothing of reality. Reality here is used in the sense of everydayness. But I do enjoy it when the fish are biting.

The critique against you does not being until you behave in a certain way, the causality of this is pretty straight forward. — Christoffer

I am not really sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that someone has been judging me because of my behavior? If that is so, that is not my problem and it is very unphilosophical to use this as an argument to prove that I am wrong.

You judge others all the time and you mock the knowledge they provide with inadequate reasoning and pure speculative opinions. The response you get probably reflect the writing you do more than all the other people and their knowledge. — Christoffer

I have not mocked you for any knowledge that you have provided, what ever knowledge that might be.

The response you get probably reflect the writing you do more than all the other people and their knowledge. — Christoffer

I get some very interesting responses from the people with interesting things to say. Especially those that don't take the time to write long post full of criticism.

You write about philosophical tools and methods of dialectic like you have no idea what you are talking about. So, I draw a conclusion based on how you actually write. — Christoffer

Never judge a book by its cover. I seriously doubt that you have read even half the number of philosophy books that I have. But I don't like to swagger around telling everyone that I know everything and common people don't.

And since your attitude is extremely impolite towards others that might have more knowledge in this area, I would say you solidified that notion. — Christoffer

Do unto others what they have done to you. You insulted most of humanity so don't cry when someone tell you that you do not know everything. Ask around, I am extremely polite to all that are polite to me.

So, no you can't say the same thing to me because I actually try to answer, you are just defending your own ego with mocking and ridiculing other people. — Christoffer

So you get points for trying. But in your own words philosophical tools and methods of dialectic are supposed to come up with the answers. So why don't they? Is there no way you can go beyond your answer to reach the solution? You said that these tools were used for that purpose.
If you cannot go any further towards a solution to the problem then what does that mean?
Does it mean that you cannot use them properly? Or maybe you are ignorant of the true facts of the situation.
Could it maybe mean that there is no solution? No, you said that it would always reach a solution so it cannot be that.

So, either you demonstrate that you have an understanding of the things discussed and prove me wrong when I suggest you study more, or just stop with your tu quoque fallacies. You attitude at the moment is the evidence in itself of my statement. — Christoffer

There we go with the challenges again. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have done that countless times yourself without realizing it. Do you really think that you would recognize a dialectic if it hit you in the face? Actually you might, if you read about Meno.
Explain to me how I could prove that I have an understanding of what we are discussing. Would you like me too some tests or something maybe? No I am not being hypocritical, I leave things like that to others that cannot "win" an argument without putting people down to do so.

Saludos
The common man

As the article and my post make quite clear, they used it to attack the then-government (Labour) in an attempt to make them lose the upcoming election - which they did, but not because of that issue. — andrewk

I think that I have to apologize here, I really did not make my self clear on that point. Yes, you stated that they were trying to win an election and they used that as a weapon for that purpose.
But what I was after in my question was why would they use something as awful as telling the world that England is a dangerous place to win.
Surely they must have seen that they would do damage to everyone, including themselves. Did they even think about what might happen if tourists began to avoid dangerous England? What about international trade and investment. That is one of the biggest issues where I live right now, no one wants to bring money here because of violent crime.

I specifically brought up gun crime, and you changed the subject to violent crime, — S

No, unforeseen said that armed societies are normal. And that started another line of discussion.

You implied that the UK was a great place to live and that it would last forever even without guns. Or something along those lines anyway.

I said that the UK is the violent crime capital of Europe and even beats the US.

You said that was false.

I commented that it must be awful living in the UK with all of those knife crimes

Then you said that you had addressed those things before as if I had asked a question or made some sort of incredible statement about knife crime. I just made a comment about something that you can read about in the newspapers everyday, and they do appear to be happening more and more. And lots of those people that have been stabbed appear to have died. Unfortunately, or maybe I should say fortunately there are not many gun crimes in the UK to compare the survival rate to.

"I am surprised at myself that I continue to be surprised that people believe controversial claims they read on heavily partisan websites, without bothering to follow the chain of references (if any) to see if they lead to anything other than just more partisan sources. — andrewk

Now that is strange, I am beginning to believe in parallel universes. I clicked on the link in S's post
to where andrewk posted this and it is not there. :gasp:

I know right? I doubt that I would do that to begin with, but if I did, and then I got exposed, I think I'd be really embarrassed, and would quickly learn not to make the same mistake again. — S

I doubt that you would post anything similar to that as well, you don't have enough imagination to provoke thought in others. If I had posted a link to the FBI you would not have answered. And this way you provide the evidence that crime is higher in the UK so everyone has to believe it.

I doubt that you would be embarrassed either, it has happened to you before despite all of your mistakes and you have still not learned from them.

The credibility of PolitiFact can be looked into online through other fact checking websites, like Media Bias / Fact Check, which rates it as least biased. — S

And who checks their reliability?

But you have just got to love them for the footnote below the ads.

"Ads do not necessarily reflect the views of MBFC"

I've addressed your point about knife crime a million times. Gun shot wounds are more deadly, so the risk is more severe, and the law reflects that, as do priorities in hospitals. — S

Yes I know. Knife wounds take up hospital space and doctor and nurse's hours and cost a lot to fix as just like gun wounds. I don't think that there is much difference between a machete wound to the stomach and a bullet wound in the same place, and it seems the people die from both.

The figures may or may not be accurate. We don't know. But we do know that the sources are anything but impartial.

The two sources listed in the footnote of the 'we love guns!' site in the link are just news articles in the Daily Telegraph, a UK paper with links to the Tory party. Further, the articles report that the statistics were compiled by Tory MPs in order to help their attacks against the then-Labour government. The article claims the statistical sources from which the Tories compiled their figures were an EU statistical agency, but no reference to a specific source of that agency is given, or to any other source. — andrewk

As you say we do not know. But it begs the quest "Why on earth would the Tories be trying to convince people that England was more violent than the USA?". Any ideas?

The articles also report that the Home Secretary of the time vigorously rejected the figures. — andrewk

He would have been a bloody fool to do otherwise.

Finally, regardless of whether the figures are fair representations of the EU figures and those from other countries like USA (no source provided), or just made up for the sake of political point-scoring, are ten years old. — andrewk

And we all know how greatly things have improved since then don't we? From what I read on the BBC things are getting worse all the time. Maybe people there will start buying guns to protect themselves. It has been report that illegal attempts to import arms has risen, I wonder what the percentage of the actual imports being caught is.

I suspected that your link would be dodgy. And guess what? It is. It contains a statistic that the much more credible fact checking website PolitiFact rates as false. — S

Thank you for presenting this, did you read the last paragraph.

"Our ruling

The meme said "there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the U.K.," compared to "466 violent crimes per 100,000" in the United States. Our preliminary attempt to make an apples-to-apples comparison shows a much smaller difference in violent crime rates between the two countries, but criminologists say differences in how the statistics are collected make it impossible to produce a truly valid comparison. We rate the claim False."

It is still higher than the USA, although I have to admit that anyone that believed the data to be accurate and unbiased would have to be crazy.
But actually a lot of it does check out, if you remember the time I showed you the FBI data base and several other links to accurate data that were basically the same.
What is really interesting though is the way violent crimes is on the rise right now. It must be bloody awful with all of those mask scooter riders running around with knives killing people everyday. Is the a reason for this?

Just a couple of questions I would like to ask about the PolitiFact web site. How do you know that it is a truly unbiased opinion that they are giving? Most of the work is done by people on newspapers payrolls.

Why do you think they only deal with politicians? Don't doctors, engineers and people on the street also make ridiculous statements?

I don't expect answers, it was just a couple of things that came to mind.

I wasn't sure you were being serious with that question. Did you genuinely not see what I did there? — S

Have I ever asked you a question that I did not expect you to take seriously?
Yes I saw what you did. You made a senseless comment that has no value just to add another post to your 7.7 list of crappy posts.

Or are you just yanking my chain because my sentence was incomplete? — S

There is only one reason that I ever yank the chain, unfortunately that option is not available in the virtual world even though it is so desperately needed.

This looks like trolling, — S

You don't know what that means. He spelled out what he thinks and why he thinks that way clearly.

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

But the UK is the violent crime center of Europe, even beating the USA.

https://americangunfacts.com/

If these do not seem real, you can verify the data through the sources they provide at the bottom of the page.

My question:

Did not think what? — Sir2u

Your answer:

Pfft! That old goat probably can't even button up his shirt correctly. — S

Nope, I don't think I missed anything. Unless of course you actually intended to answer that meaningless, senseless and complete idiotic.

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

I totally agree with you, to each their own and good luck with the choices you make.

But you forgot to add drinking and loving to the activities.

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

You kept insisting that I had hinted at a ratio, so I highlighted all of the hints. It should be obvious if others managed to figure it out. As I asked, was it really necessary to mention the word ratio before a smart person like you figured it out.

Could you just remind exactly what accusations you were making about attempted bullying? — andrewk

Where did I make any accusations, as I said I was only commenting on the purpose of the forum and your style.

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

I have given any and all of the reasons why I think what I do, I think that I have justified the way I think adequately. But that is not what I am talking about, you keep insisting that I am wrong and claiming in a non bullying way that I am naive.
So it is up to you to provide the reasons why I am wrong.
As you say, if you make a statement the onus is on you to prove it. So go ahead and prove that anything that I have said is false. Or as you and S are fond of saying just admit that you cannot do it.

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

Yes, I know. It happens all the time. But some people around here think that is reason enough to call you out and say that you need to go back to school and learn some grammar. I know because it has happened to me on several occasions. that is why I warned you to be careful.

It appears that it is actually not at all painful to admit that one is wrong sometimes. — andrewk

So explain to me why I am wrong and I will follow your example.

Pfft! That old goat probably can't even button up his shirt correctly. — S

Still refusing to answer questions I see. But I guess it is because you don't have an answer. :roll:

Didn't think so. — S

Did not think what? Please try not to write these cryptic one liners, Banno is the only one that can do that correctly.

Ah, I see. So you were merely being pedantic,and your point was trivial — S

No, I was not being pedantic, I leave stuff like that to you. And the point was not trivial, it is not my fault that you cannot express clearly what you want to say.

, and you either misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted what I was saying. — S

Neither of those, you wrote something that did not make sense and I pointed it out to you.

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

OK, so it was your inability to make your ideas clear. You should try harder to write what you mean, I remember you telling me that so many times.

The problem was more than that. Enforceable is not the same as enforced. I want the two together. — S

Ahh, now I understand. You want a hundred percent guaranteed answer. Could I ask how do you think it would happen in the good old USA.

And who do you think is arguing against that, if anyone? — S

As far as I can see no one is. But no one has given any ideas about how to go about doing it either.

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

Oh dear, I really must be losing my mind. I am so sure that I had posted all of those things below.

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

The fact that other people obviously understood and pointed out what I said leaves me thinking that you do not understand English very well.

I think he means the ratio of "good guys with guns to bad guys with guns". — VagabondSpectre

Do I really have to mention that these are ratios, when you are the one that pointed out that I seemed to be implying something like that. I took it for granted that you knew how to read.

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

Nit picking.

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

Maybe I hinted incorrectly or not at all, just your imagination, or maybe you understood incorrectly. Who knows. What is obvious is that the cops nearly always arrive after a crime has been committed because there are not enough to have them just standing around waiting for a crime to happen.

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

My original statement stands until someone can prove it to be false. Which you certainly have no way of doing.
Be careful using "that that" in sentences, S gets upset and pulls out his dictionary and some webpages about it.

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 have already made a statement about my thoughts on gun crime prevention, but I would have to give some thought to the idea of cops not being able to enforce gun acquisition programs. Exactly what are these programs supposed to do.

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

Oh, I don't feel bullied at all, I was just commenting on your style. It seems to be heading in the same direction as S. Comments like the one below tend to show the writer's inability to provide proper answers to the questions more than the inability of the one it is being written to.

Why not just admit you wrote something that made no sense? — andrewk

You have still not answered the question either, another habit of our friend S. Why am I wrong?

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

"The 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA), passed in response tothe April 28, 1996 Port Arthur, Tasmania massacre of 35 people, banned semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns, bought back more than 650,000 of these weapons from existing owners, and tightened requirements for licensing, registration, and safe storage of firearms. The buyback is estimated to have reduced the number of guns in private hands by 20%, and, by some estimates, almost halved the number of gun-owning households."

Just over half a million guns BOUGHT back. It is estimated that there are more than 350 million guns in the USA.

Do you still think the comparison is valid?All of this has been proposed already. and no one has come up with an idea to put it into effect.
Who is going to authorize the purchase of these guns at a value that would make it worth while to turn it in? Count each one at about $10, that is a lot of tax payers money to be spent. And most of the owners of the guns spent much more buying the guns and are not going to be happy that their money is used for this instead of helping the already screwed up educational and health systems.

As to the effectiveness of this, even they are not sure whether it made any difference.

"This issue of Bulletins reviews the evidence on the effect of the NFA on firearm deaths. There have not been any studies examining the effect of the buyback on crime other than homicide. Some scientists believed that the buyback might reduce firearm crime, but most saw no reason to expect that it would significantly affect non-firearm crime.Most crimes in Australia before the NFA did not involve firearms, and few Australians owned handguns or carried them on their person, either before or after the buyback. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that after the buyback, the percentage of robberies where the assailant used a firearm did drop significantly. There was little change in “unlawful entry with intent,” one of the few types of crime where one might make a case for a possible deterrent effect of having a gun in the home."

https://americangunfacts.com/
Gun Ownership Vs Crime, an international perspective

I live in the #1 spot on the international side of the diagram. I own and sometimes carry a weapon, I have fired a couple of times as a deterrent and I am happy to be here writing today because of this.

Yes, I did. Did you think about that before you typed and submitted it? — 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.

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

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.

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

Basically what I have been saying from the beginning, education first.

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

I have never said that I have any expectations, I have simply asked for people to present their solutions.
So far all of the solutions have amounted to "create laws and enforce them". When I have pointed out that there are laws and the problems with enforcing them you and others like you get uppity. If you do not want to discuss this like a rational person, why the hell do you keep sticking your nose in.
Is it possibly that you keep posting simply because you want to add more posts to you status, that you tie in with your continuous use of multiple posts in a row instead of combining them in to one as would seem the logical thing to do.

Oh man, that's priceless. — S

It is not as good as yours though.

Naive - adjective
Marked by or showing unaffected simplicity and lack of guile or worldly experience
Inexperienced
Lacking information or instruction
Not initiated; deficient in relevant experience

Please tell me how any of those meaning can be applied to describe a question, which is an abstract. I have never met a question that has worldly experience or experience of any kind for that matter, so in that sense all questions would be naive. I have never read a question that lacks information or instruction. How would you initiate a question or show its deficiency in experience?

A person can be naive for asking a question, but even school kids know that this adjective cannot be applied to a question.

I don't recall him saying anything about this hat which you mention. — S

Congratulations. that is the first one you have found out of six. You must be getting desperate to make me look bad so that you can "win". When you have nothing worth while or relevant to say you always start picking on people's typo's, grammar and spelling.

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

In what way did I address him on his own terms? All I did was ask who was going to do the shooting, there was nothing there to challenge. If anything I was pointing out the folly of what he said.

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

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.

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

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.

Keep on look for the easter eggs, I left several here for you're enjoyment.

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 have a very small, 5 people, group of friends. I have 2 other family members. And we do discuss world problems of every kind, even though I am the only one that participates in a philosophy forum. But I work with hundreds of people everyday. Most of them seem perfectly capable of talking about the problems of the world as well. So I still don't understand why you think that non-philosophy forum people do not have the tools necessary to think about such things.

I already told you the realistic route of action. Stop acting naive. — Christoffer

I am beginning to believe that "naive" is your word of the week. And I don't see how your route is realistic.

Philosophy of ethics and justice. — Christoffer

This does not answer the question, I asked how gun control qualifies as a philosophical question, not which area of philosophy would possible put it into.

Have you ever met anyone outside of philosophy who can do a proper dialectic? — Christoffer

I have not asked anyone whether they can do a proper dialectic. But as you are making this statement about the non-philosophically inclined people's incapability, I am sure that you have asked everyone you have ever met in your anthropological wanderings and all of the parties you have ever attended. Because that is the only way to know such things that I am aware of.

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

Actually I doubt that most of the people here on the forum are philosophy students or have a degree in philosophy. I can think of several members whom I know of that do not.
While knowledge of the use of dialectic tools is useful to argue successfully, it is useless in the face of ignorance. If you know nothing about the topic, there is no use for these tools.
Seriously, do you think that the common people have not realized that there is a problem with guns? They know well enough that there is. It is not the lack of these tools that stops them from doing something about it, but the lack of methods that can be used. They vote for the people that they want to represent them and the ones that propose removing the guns lose. They protest in the streets and get arrested because, as you say it turns into a brawl.
You say that you have the use of these tools, what are you going to do to solve the problem?

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

This does not qualify as proof of the statement you made.

Why do you think that philosophers have been gaining popularity as a hired consultant in many workplaces? — "Christoffer

The articles say that some people think that philosophy graduates might have a better career that others, but it makes no mention of them gaining popularity as a hired.

Philosophy is more about how you think about problems, not direct solutions to problems. — Christoffer

I very much doubt that is what the companies think, if they hire someone as a consultant they want the problem solved not just thought about.

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

It would get things going again without which there would be no new problems down the line because there would be no company.
But it would make sense to hire someone that could do both problem solving and preventative work. Unfortunately, "preventative" in industry usually means foreseeing possible problem and trying to prevent them, which would be almost impossible without the technological know how. I don't think many philosophy graduates would be able to predict possible week points in any system that they have no knowledge of.

I recommend that you study a bit more philosophy before you demand solutions in the way you do. — Christoffer

I have made no demands, I asked you how you would solve a problem and you have no answer.

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

Oh dear. Is it my fault that you have nothing to contribute to the solving of the problem? I am not the one that sets myself above the common people nor do I claim to be a philosophy. I am just a humble thinker with opinions based on what I see and what I know. It would seem to be that you are the one covering up your inabilities with pompousness.

You know nothing about me, so who's actually sitting on a high horse, judging? — Christoffer

I can say exactly the same thing about you. You do not know me or what I have studied, but you presume to make statements about what I should do to improve my understanding of truth and the world.

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

No, you were just hitching a ride on someone else's white horse. You saw someone pointing out a supposed error and you jumped on the band wagon. A common practice of yours.

If you and andrewk are incapable of understanding them I am sorry for you both.

Now, if you believe what you say then explain the fallacies you named as they apply to my post. I already know how you are going to respond, "LOOK IT UP YOURSELF". Because you have no idea how to do it..

Bring in tougher gun laws which can be enforced, and enforce them. — S

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?

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

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.

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

Lucky you, but there was probably never any guns to get rid of so the situation is nowhere near the same as we have been discussing. Gun laws and controls are preventative measures that prevent the problems from happening but are not always the solution to an existing problem like in the USA. Have you ever lived in a gun infested area? I work in the place that was named the murder capital of the world for several years.

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

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. The cops are not removing the illegal guns from the streets until a crime is committed despite the fact there there are laws and regulations that permit them to do so. You do know that these laws exist I suppose. If that is too difficult to understand then I am at a loss about how to make it simpler.

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

I think that you have been listening to S too much. The purpose of these type of forums is supposed to be educational, a place where you can express your ideas and read other peoples ideas. It is not about beating and bullying others into submission and trying to force them into admitting that they are wrong.

If you think my idea is incorrect them it is up to you to present your case and prove it.
So please show me why my statement that there are not enough cops to solve the gun problem nor enough public support to do so is wrong.
There is the challenge, either show me what is wrong or shut up.

The admission wouldn't hamper your ability to continue arguing against gun control, should you wish to do so. — andrewk

Priceless. Please show me where I have ever argued against gun control.

The closest that I have ever come to doing so is to say that the people of the USA believe that they have the right to carry guns. Learn to read.

Common people do not discuss these issues on a philosophy forum or try to figure out the truth about the world and existence. They want to drink Starbucks coffee and enjoy some evening entertainment or sport on TV. I'm not criticizing this (although I think people should care a bit more about truth), I'm only stating the facts of how the world is. — Christoffer

You must have a very wide social circle to be able to make this claim. I know lots of people that probably do not even know of the existence of this and other similar sites, and they have opinions and discuss this topic along with other social problems. Why would anyone need to figure out the truth about the world and existence to be able to discuss gun control? Why do you think that no one ever does it while drinking coffee? 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.

Just see how many get excited at a party if you start talking philosophy. This is not what most common people have an interest in. Which also means that they don't have the tools to understand the issues and are easily persuaded by lobbyist and smart political rhetoric. — Christoffer

Is gun control a philosophical topic? That sounds really weird to me. I thought it was a social problem that we were discussing possible solutions to. Exactly how does it qualify as a philosophical topic?

If I was at a party and some dork started talking about Plato I would probably want to shoot him, not because of the topic but because of the setting. Just because people do not want to talk about philosophy at a party in no way proves that they don't have the tools to understand the issues. Which are the ever so special tools that you say you have just because you come to visit a philosophy forum?

It's actually us, philosophers and people who've been putting a lot of effort and thought into the issues of this world, — Christoffer

Who is this "us"? I don't and I am reasonably sure that the majority of posters here do not consider themselves to be philosophers. I spend most of my time trying to sort out my own problems and have spent a minimum of time and effort on the issues of the world. What have you done to solve the problems of hunger in Africa, child labor in Indonesia or slave traders in Europe?

who will be the ones educating other people on these issues. Why do you think that philosophers have been gaining popularity as a hired consultant in many workplaces? — Christoffer

Before you can teach, you have to know. Which is the top of the list for jobs available for people with a philosophy degree. I have not been able to find any information about how many philosophers are actually hired as consultants but there does not seem to be much of a need for philosophy graduates in that area.
If you can please post a link to the information about that I would be thankful.

https://www.prospects.ac.uk/careers-advice/what-can-i-do-with-my-degree/philosophy
https://www.lovemoney.com/news/3981/the-best-and-worstpaying-university-degrees

That's a bit of a naive question. — Christoffer

How can a question be naive? The person asking it maybe, although not in this case, but the question cannot be naive.

It's time when it's time when people want it. Just look at how people have started waking up to the facts because of all the rapports of mass shootings. Or it can go in the other direction. For US, I think the problem is fundamental in US history and culture, so I don't think it's gonna happen anywhere but the most progressive states.

It starts with the people. If you want a solution, figure out how you can convince one single gun owner to give up their guns for the greater good. If you can't convince a single one, you won't be able to push a whole nation. — Christoffer

So basically you, a self proclaimed philosopher, has no solution to the problem that has not already been discussed on this thread. All of the tools you say you have are just as useless as the ones the coffee drinking common people have.

But there is probably one thing that the common people have that you don't, a better understanding of how things affect them. Sitting high on a mountain looking at you belly button might make you a better philosopher, but until you get down in the streets you will not understand the problems you are trying to solve.

I really don't see a problem with finding out what to do. — Christoffer

Please feel free to make a viable suggestion. I am sure that the American society will thank you for it because they have not been able to come up with an acceptable idea.

You're right in that it's harder to enforce the laws, but that's dependent on how the fundamental mentality of the people is. The solution will be, in places like the US, to either force people to follow the rules, or accept that the risk of mass shootings, school shootings, high violent crime and individual isolation out of fear of strangers is the norm. You either enforce laws or you don't, it depends on what the people want in a democracy. — Christoffer

How do you force that many people to give up their guns? Even after all of the mass shootings and bad stuff that has happened the Americans continue to vote to be allowed to keep their guns.

Unfortunately, common people don't have the tools to understand this on their own, but you can still not force laws beyond the democratic process. So the only thing that I can see is positive is to educate, to provide the information about this to the people so that they, after a while, stop defending their personal preferences in order to increase the quality of life within their nation. — Christoffer

Don't put the common people down, a lot of us do understand the information. That is why they still refuse to vote for banning guns.
I stated a long time ago that one way to solve the problem is through education, changing the mentality of the people might change the feelings towards guns. But how long will this take and how successful will the education system be against family and street influences? And the biggest part of the gun problem is not the normal everyday guy in the street, it is the thugs, How do you educate them

Only at the right time can politicians enforce more strict gun laws without enraging half the country. — Christoffer

How long do you estimate until that happens?

Just compare societies with low gun control and societies with high gun control - And then compare that to the statistics of best places to live in the world.

Is there a point to discussing when there's data that point to the truth? — Christoffer

That is well known and has been repeated ad vomitus throughout the thread. I don't think that anyone here disagrees with that. But the problem is what to do about it. No one has any ideas about how to solve the problem when there are so many guns and people involved.

It is easy to say "Bring in tougher gun laws" but as I have said since the beginning writing laws and enforcing them are two different things.

To what ratio were you referring with your use of 'rarely'? — andrewk

Let me ask you a couple of simple question, how many people get arrested for carrying a gun before they either try to use it or actually do use it in a crime? Do police where you live actually stop people and search them for weapons without a valid reason?

Rarely means not often, seldom, infrequently, it is rarely used in any other sense so I see no reason to be providing a definition of it.

You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed, — Sir2u

If you are having any trouble understanding the above sentence I don't know how to help you.

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.

If you are still having trouble, maybe S will get his magic dictionary out of the shit house so you can use it.

Indeed, that was a classic case of red herring / missing the point. — S

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.

They need to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities using appropriate force. It's unreasonable to jump straight into assuming that they need to be shot. Jesus Christ. Not only is that an unreasonable assumption, it's a harmful assumption.

That kind of answer would surely fail a police exam. Or if not, say, in somewhere insane like Texas, then it should do. — S

I think you should have addressed you reply to Emmanuele as he is the one that said it would be easier to shoot whoever was carrying a gun.

And in case you did not notice, I have not agreed with him on the idea.

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

Keeping it in context helps.

Let's not forget that if weapons are illegal it's fair to shoot whoever is carring a gun on sight. It makes targetting the bad guys a hell of a lot easier. — Emmanuele

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

To which Echarmion replied

And how does that prevent the police from targeting people wielding these guns? — Echarmion

And then

It does not stop them at all, it just makes them ineffectual.
You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed, that is why the tape they use says "crime scene" instead of "crime prevention scene". — Sir2u

To answer your question, even if guns were made illegal that does not mean that they would just disappear. There are millions of illegal guns that the cops are not going to find until they are used in a crime. 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. Not going to happen.

And how does that prevent the police from targeting people wielding these guns? — Echarmion

It does not stop them at all, it just makes them ineffectual.
You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed, that is why the tape they use says "crime scene" instead of "crime prevention scene".

Let's not forget that if weapons are illegal it's fair to shoot whoever is carring a gun on sight. It makes targetting the bad guys a hell of a lot easier. — Emmanuele

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.

Another thought, accepting that god exists would also accept that devils and angels also exist. As the saying goes, you can't have one without the others.

Does that make it more complicated to derive anything from the existence of god? If anything can be attributed to god then we should be able to do the same for the rest of them.

Anyone want to describe the devil? :naughty:

And they are not doing that anyway? — Bitter Crank

Nope, they are imagining doing it to an imaginary being.

Not the same now that Timmy has granted him/her/it a part of reality/existence.

Remember Starman, Jeff Bridges not David Bowie, they had autopsy tables with straps for arms, legs, and torso.

Actually the only thing I can think of right now is that if it were verified that god did exist, there would be lots and lots of people either sucking up to him wanting favors or trying to dissect him to find out how he works.

Go forth and preach the truth to the multitudes! — Michael Ossipoff

Where did I say or imply that I know the truth? The truth about what?

You see, Sir2u has the truth. And he doesn't have any beliefs. — Michael Ossipoff

What is the relation between truth and beliefs? Are you saying that a person cannot know the truth without having beliefs? That seems very strange.

But what, in particular, is this truth that Sir2u has, that (at least some) people don't like? — Michael Ossipoff

I don't know what people did not like, I am not a mind reader. And yes it is valid to say "because they have not told me" for the simple reason that it is the truth. They have not told me. :chin:

It seems you rubbed him the wrong way in the past. — Noah Te Stroete

A wise man once said "If the truth hurts, then you must change the truth."

Lots of people are not fond of the truth. Maybe I said something he did not like, I don't remember.

LOL Rest assured I am not a violent criminal. I just have religious guilt due to my upbringing. — Noah Te Stroete

Yeah, I guessed that. Not too many of them come around here. I hope.

The reason for the question is to see why Michael thought it was necessary to rush to your defense while insulting me.

But you should resist the inclination to mock beliefs different from your own. — Michael Ossipoff

I don't have any beliefs, that is what atheism is all about, not have them. But I did not mock him, I told him what he wanted to hear. And he was happy with it until you burst the bubble.

Just briefly, remember that you don't know all the Theists or the beliefs of all Theists, — Michael Ossipoff

I have little interest in knowing and it makes little difference.

What you do know, and should feel free to say, is that you don't know of evidence for, or reason for faith about, what someone else believes. Saying that, vs saying that there's no evidence, or no reason for faith--Those are two different kinds of statements. — Michael Ossipoff

Basically all I have ever said is that I have never heard convincing evidence to support peoples religious beliefs. What they want to believe is their problem. I leave it to them to explain, if they want to, why they believe.

A little humility and modesty would be good, and that's something missing from our aggressive-Atheist brothers. — Michael Ossipoff

For someone that takes it upon himself to preach to others about sinning you might consider taking your own advice once in a while.

But I like your last paragraph, quoted above. — Michael Ossipoff

Thank you.

:victory: Peace brother.

P.S.

I have not been a good man in this life. — Noah Te Stroete

How do you know he is not a mass murderer, or worse?

I hope he is not and that he does find peace.