The Philosophy Discussion Forum

The gun is a thing that you want and enjoy. You may even find it useful. But it's a stretch to describe it in terms of need.
Society gains nothing much from you having that gun, even if you don't do anything wrong with it.
But if you do get up to something naughty, innocent lives stand to be lost.

You can complain about how unjust it might be, but I think other people have a right to take measures to ensure that you are not intent on murdering them and their children with it. "You can't interfere until after I go on a murder spree" is quite a weak objection really.

Leo, it's pointless. A lot of Yanks are mad keen on their guns and terrified of being defenceless without them. There will ever be any concessions from them of any kind in these discussions.

Since we don't live in a society obsessed and saturated with guns we don't know the levels of fear and paranoia many Americans must feel, knowing there's millions of guns out there and plenty of unbalanced gun owners ready to use them at any time. So they feel the need to be armed, not knowing what it's like to live in a safe society. In fact, internet gun debates make clear that many Americans cannot even imagine it's possible for a society to be safe in the way we here in Oz live - largely thanks to rational gun laws.

Since gun advocates base their views on fear, they will use any manner of misinformation and distraction to argue against the very obvious fact that the more freely available deadly weapons are, the more likely that accidents will happen and mentally and morally sick people will commit atrocities with them. If you legalised Anthrax and made it available as an over the counter chemist preparation there would be more Anthrax deaths too, though no doubt many would claim it's not the Anthrax that kills people, but people.

Any rationalisation, no matter how absurd, will do when one is motivated by fear. The ones I feel sorry for (aside from the victims) are the Americans who can see all too clearly the illogic and danger of their countrymen's gun obsessions and are seemingly powerless to change the situation due to a stacked Congress and biased media.

Greta wrote: If you legalised Anthrax and made it available as an over the counter chemist preparation there would be more Anthrax deaths too,

I made a similar point in a previous post. I have no familiarity with firearms but I know my way around a biological laboratory quite well. If I put my mind to it I'm quite certain that I could kill a shitload more people with a flask of anthrax spores than anybody could ever hope to kill with a gun. Since I have no history of violent crime then according to henry's logic it is my basic human right to have such a flask in my possession, just as it is then my society's right to execute me after I use it. Is this f****** nuts or is it just me?

Obvious Leo wrote:

Greta wrote: If you legalised Anthrax and made it available as an over the counter chemist preparation there would be more Anthrax deaths too,

I made a similar point in a previous post. I have no familiarity with firearms but I know my way around a biological laboratory quite well. If I put my mind to it I'm quite certain that I could kill a shitload more people with a flask of anthrax spores than anybody could ever hope to kill with a gun. Since I have no history of violent crime then according to henry's logic it is my basic human right to have such a flask in my possession, just as it is then my society's right to execute me after I use it. Is this f****** nuts or is it just me?

More a rebellion against the restrictions imposed by civilised society. Not all groups civilise at the same time, and not aspects of societies civilise at the same rate.

The world is changing. We have moved into a high population era and, the larger the population, the more restrictions are placed on ordinary people. Those of us raised during the freer and more relaxed societies of the 60s, 70s and 80s can't always adapt to the culture shock and become hyper defensive. This is why so many are against all restrictions - they yearn for simpler, less crowded times.

I miss the old days too, but now we have these massive conglomerations of people, if our laws don't adapt there will be greater chaos and danger, as is building in the US at present. The American people were part of the most dominant nation for many years and they are not accustomed to having circumstances force their hands - they expect the US to do all the forcing. Two lost wars, weakened morale and sense of morality, trillions of dollars and millions of lives later and the US empire is fading fast.

Now the people cling to their guns like a lifeline but if you put growing population in ever closer quarters there will be increased conflicts of interest, and with ever higher states in . Add deadly weapons and increased deaths are certain. I guess it helps with the population problem. Perhaps the US's relatively low average longevity is something to be proud of?

Greta wrote: I guess it helps with the population problem. Perhaps the US's relatively low average longevity is something to be proud of?

In all likelihood their massively expensive health system providing a third-world standard of care is making an even greater contribution to keeping them dying young than even their appalling rate of gun homicide.

"But it's a stretch to describe it in terms of need."

As I've said multiple times in-forum: I saved my life with my shotgun; I feed my family with my shotgun. It's a useful, practical tool I need to live as I choose. You may be content relying completely on others but I'm not.

#

"Society gains nothing much from you having that gun, even if you don't do anything wrong with it."

But I don't live for society. I live to futher myself, to raise my kid. Society is the context within which I do these things, not the reason. *I mind my own business, keep my hands to myself; I expect other folks to do the same. As far as I'm concerned, I uphold my end of the basic contract for *civillization. That, however, isn't enough, though, is it? Your fear is my burden.

#

"I think other people have a right to take measures to ensure that you are not intent on murdering them and their children with it."

And I think I have the responsibility to care for me and mine. I think I have a responsibility to self-direct and -defend.

Obviously, there's no middle ground for us to find an accord on.

"Since I have no history of violent crime then according to henry's logic it is my basic human right to have such a flask in my possession."

I never said jack about rights.

Simply: I assessed a need (my need) to to maintain my autonomy. My shotgun is one tool in my kit to satisfy that need (along with others, like self-employment). Rights (really privilliges) are for children and the terminally niave.

And: if you had such a vial, never using it, how am I harmed? What you mean to say is the mere possibility that you may use that vial's contents is sufficent for the community to restrain you. I have a pressure cooker, pressure cookers make dandy bombs, better come get that pressure cooker before I lose my mind and blow up a classroom. I got liquid Drano, that shit is a corrosive nightmare in a human body, better come get it before I bake it into a meatloaf. I own a car, lots folks are killed with cars, better confiscate mine, and on and on.

My idea of a free society is one where, as I say, I mind my own business, keep my hands to myself, and you do the same. Where one of us doesn't mind his own business and keep his hands to himself, there are multiple paths to redress injury (some conventionally acceptable, some not).

Finally, it pleases me to no end that Austrailia is so peaceful and ordered....good on you all. Make you a deal: I'll stay outta your utopia and you stay outta my hell.

Problem solved, yes?

'But, Henry, what about all the Americans who feel as we do? You know, enlightened, noble creatures like us who are tired of rubbing shoulders with subhumans like you, don't they have the right to the same order and peace we enjoy?'

Well, I'm not goin' anywhere, so I guess them enfleshed angels can (1) go live in Austrailia or (2) keep workin' to disarm me...frankly, I don't give a flip either way. In the first case, good luck to them; in the second, I'm not givin' up my property (I won't be hobbled by their, or your, fear).

A body is gonna assess as it will and act accordingly...where there's accord with others, there's gonna be peace and where there is no accord, there can only be war. With you, with folks like you, for me, there's only war.

Yeah. That's why you probably shouldn't be allowed to posses a firearm.

No, that's why you ought to have one.

Henry,
Would you agree that it might be a reasonable move to restrict guns to just double-barrel shotguns(I assume this it what you mean by a coach-gun) and have at least a reasonable licencing process(its pretty much what we do over here)?

henry quirk wrote:...
And: if you had such a vial, never using it, how am I harmed? What you mean to say is the mere possibility that you may use that vial's contents is sufficent for the community to restrain you. I have a pressure cooker, pressure cookers make dandy bombs, better come get that pressure cooker before I lose my mind and blow up a classroom. I got liquid Drano, that shit is a corrosive nightmare in a human body, better come get it before I bake it into a meatloaf. I own a car, lots folks are killed with cars, better confiscate mine, and on and on.

Given your accident statistics and what appears to be the quality of the average driver over there I think you might have a case here.

It's a bit disingenuous this argument about bombs and pressure cookers as you're right you can do this but compare it to the ease of effort your system allows of just picking-up a gun and ammo and gunning down people I think it shows that if you make things a little harder you might save a few more young lives.

Still, like you say, each country to it's own but I think it's hard to argue with the stats with respect to mass-killings between our countries.

"Would you agree that it might be a reasonable move to restrict guns to just double-barrel shotguns(I assume this it what you mean by a coach-gun) and have at least a reasonable licencing process(its pretty much what we do over here)?"

Yes, a coach gun is a double with a slightly shorter set of barrels (the swing is better). As I say up-thread, I got no problem with mandatory gun safety training prior to purchase. I do have a problem with licensing. The current climate doesn't lend itself to 'reasonable' anything and I can see such a registry used unreasonably. As for firearm variety, no, not seein' any point to such a thing and neither do the shakers and movers among the anti-gunners...they want all guns gone.

And, as I've said up-thread, I know we have a problem here...never disputed the stats.

What I know: the U.S. with 300 million is not Britain with 70 million, or Austrailia with 24 million and what's worked for you folks will not work here.

Cynically (and fully in keeping with the in-forum view of Americans), we're too f****** primitive to abide the loss of our boom sticks.

Lord knows, I'm not tradin' mine off for the pretty promises, but then, mebbe I'm more primitive than most.

FlashDangerpants wrote:Yeah. That's why you probably shouldn't be allowed to posses a firearm.

My thoughts too, Flash. It's not ideal when an immature mind meets a deadly weapon.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... truck.html

Oh come on, too funny for words.

Makes you believe that there is at the very least a 'God' with an ironic sense of humour.