Philosophy Now Forum

reasonvemotion wrote:Former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer said a person was 15 times more likely to be shot dead in the US than in Australia.

.

According to the Wiki list it's about 9 times more.
You are 5 times more likely to get shot in Australia than in the UK

Hand gun deaths per 100k of pop. US 9, AU, 1, UK 0.22.

It would not surprise me that these figures are directly proportional to the availability.

America is not sliding into an abyss reasonvemotion. and neither is the rest of the world. so many things going on right now might make it seem like it is and destined to be. but we are also inching forward.

your making really good points about the availability of weapons chaz but what about those Americans who fear that a little loss of freedom here and there could eventually lead to other losses of freedoms here and there and that overall 1 good might result in 'many bads'.?

for example, would you be for the prohibition of alcohol? yes, there would be alot less violent bar fights and alcohol related problems. but, would you want alcohol prohibited because of it?

chaz wyman wrote:

bus2bondi wrote:good point bob, however, where do they get their firearms from?

Check the facts, before you think a point is a good one.

you don't teach a class in communication do you? hope not. because your understanding of it is base. your 'literalist fundamentalism' better not blow in the breeze cuz the government seed.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer said a person was 15 times more likely to be shot dead in the US than in Australia.

C.W. wrote:

According to the Wiki list it's about 9 times more.
You are 5 times more likely to get shot in Australia than in the UK

Thanks for that C.W.
Maybe that is why he is the "Former" cant get his facts straight.

ban guns or find an alternative solution? banning guns would be all fine and dandy aside from some of the perspectives mentioned throughout the thread. not to mention we haven't even brought up the fact that this would seriously impact hunters. i don't think hunters want the right to own a weapon confused and entangled with social violence and human massacre. and i don't think they want to be blamed for it either. especially because they have nothing to do with it. at the same time, banning guns seems to be a solution when it comes to alot of the violence and massacre in America.

i think that America's signature innovativness will end massacres and the violence within it without banning guns. not to mention, if guns were banned, here of all places, there would be one hell of a march on Washington. that would only lead to more unnecessary bloodshed and massacre. so our innovation is all we got.

BAN GUNS

Why did this young man between 20 and 30 shot his father and then mother and then many children ?
How can it be that so much hatred accumulates in a person´s soul without the surroundings noticing and doing something about it ?

bus2bondi wrote:for example, would you be for the prohibition of alcohol? yes, there would be alot less violent bar fights and alcohol related problems. but, would you want alcohol prohibited because of it?

It has been tried, you know. In the land of the free, actually. USA had a national ban on the sale, manufacture and transportation of alcohol from 1920 to 1933. Enforcement of the prohibition proved to be difficult and the ban led to vast criminal organisations like the mafia flourishing. It was similar to the present day problem with narcotics. Criminal organisations thrive on drug trade, because the drugs can't be produced and sold legally. Banning guns and allowing drugs would perhaps be a good idea.

bus2bondi wrote:your making really good points about the availability of weapons chaz but what about those Americans who fear that a little loss of freedom here and there could eventually lead to other losses of freedoms here and there and that overall 1 good might result in 'many bads'.?

The slippery slope argument is a fallacy.
All is being suggested is that AMericans give up their unlimited right to bear arms, like other civilised countries.
Bearing arms doe not guarantee freedom of any kind except the right to bear arms.
Oppressive states are as armed as non oppressive states; there is no correlation.
By allowing the madness to continue al you do is hand over the state to para-military organisations that keep their cellars full of weapons - is that what you call freedom?
In the UK most policemen are not armed. That is a freedom I cherish.

bus2bondi wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

bus2bondi wrote:good point bob, however, where do they get their firearms from?

Check the facts, before you think a point is a good one.

you don't teach a class in communication do you? hope not. because your understanding of it is base. your 'literalist fundamentalism' better not blow in the breeze cuz the government seed.

Don't run away with the idea I was flaming you. It was just that Bob had lied. And I did not want you to think he had made a good point when he was just misleading you.

duszek wrote:Why did this young man between 20 and 30 shot his father and then mother and then many children ?
How can it be that so much hatred accumulates in a person´s soul without the surroundings noticing and doing something about it ?

It's a fashionable response to angst in the US. I don't think the 'hatred' is special to the US. It's just that shooting is not very up-close and personal. It's just that the opportunity is there?
I doubt if he would have had the gall to kill those kids with a knife. A gun is a remote and automatic way of killing, like killing by pressing a button. We see it every day in films. It's not real killing.
Killing with a gun, humans or animals is for pathetic cowards.

Notvacka wrote:

bus2bondi wrote:for example, would you be for the prohibition of alcohol? yes, there would be alot less violent bar fights and alcohol related problems. but, would you want alcohol prohibited because of it?

It has been tried, you know. In the land of the free, actually. USA had a national ban on the sale, manufacture and transportation of alcohol from 1920 to 1933. Enforcement of the prohibition proved to be difficult and the ban led to vast criminal organisations like the mafia flourishing. It was similar to the present day problem with narcotics. Criminal organisations thrive on drug trade, because the drugs can't be produced and sold legally. Banning guns and allowing drugs would perhaps be a good idea.

I do not think you can draw direct analogies between guns restriction and other types of proscriptions.