Philosophy Now Forum

I was sent this - Just thought I'd share it.

GUN LOGIC 101

An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine this week:

"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq Theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington , DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. That means you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US capital which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S., than you are in Iraq .

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington .

Stupid post, what's your point?

chaz wyman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:14 am [From] the Australian Shooter Magazine...

"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq Theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington , DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. That means you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US capital which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S., than you are in Iraq .

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington .

The point of the quote from Australian Shooter appears to be that one is more likely to be killed by gunfire in a city that has strict gun control laws, than in a theater of war. This may have be taken as a serious claim or as ironic humor.

While it may have been intended seriously, the quote is a false claim.

That is to say that what comes to mind, whether intended or not, is the implication that strict control leads to increased gun violence. However, it may just as readily be that excessive gun violence leads to the enactment of strict gun control laws. An association, of violence and law, is not a causal relationship.

The quote is not ironic. It is moronic.

The Shooter has overlooked a well-understood military fact. Namely that there are at least nine support troops, tucked away in the rear echelon, for every combat soldier. Since these troops are not at all exposed to excessive gun violence, the firearm death rate for the 10% who are fighting a war is 600 per 100,000, meaning you are about 75 times more likely to die in the killing fields than in a city.

chaz wyman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:14 am I was sent this - Just thought I'd share it.

GUN LOGIC 101

An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine this week:

"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq Theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington , DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. That means you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US capital which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S., than you are in Iraq .

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington .

Conclusion: Wherever there are guns, people will kill each other.

Conclusion 2: If people want to live in a safe community they need to get rid of all guns.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed Oct 31, 2018 9:09 pm

chaz wyman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:14 am I was sent this - Just thought I'd share it.

GUN LOGIC 101

An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine this week:

"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq Theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington , DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. That means you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US capital which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S., than you are in Iraq .

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington .

Conclusion: Wherever there are guns, people will kill each other.

Conclusion 2: If people want to live in a safe community they need to get rid of all guns.

Chaz, you probably noticed that my quarrel was with the magazine and not you. Your conclusions are absolutely right on.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Wed Oct 31, 2018 9:09 pm

chaz wyman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:14 am I was sent this - Just thought I'd share it.

GUN LOGIC 101

An interesting letter in the Australian Shooter Magazine this week:

"If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq Theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington , DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. That means you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US capital which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the U.S., than you are in Iraq .

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington .

Conclusion: Wherever there are guns, people will kill each other.

Conclusion 2: If people want to live in a safe community they need to get rid of all guns.

The world was such a wonderful, peaceful place before guns were invented...

A liberal view of infringement:

In using an agenda-driven tactic that divorces words from their original intent, we could say that the right to bear arms says nothing about the right to bear loaded arms. We could even say that the specific words don’t specify the load being compatible with the weapon, which is another reason Shakespeare thought unkindly of lawyers.

When life is on the line, the intent is, responsible use of the tool that can take life. The automobile is a tool that can take life here and there, and away. People are tested by a licensed inspector to operate an automobile. Those who pass the test, which is about everyone, get their own license to prove the inspection took place, among other things.

The intent of the gun is responsible use of a tool that can take life. That the primary purpose of the gun of the hand is to take human life is irrelevant to principle, since society has accepted this purpose as a necessity for self-defense.

To follow the intent of the gun, which is to responsibly use the gun as a tool to defend life and property, then arms-bearers should pass the Dirty Harry Test *.

The Dirty Harry Test would not infringe on the right to bear arms, when right to bear arms is illuminated by intent of the arms, which is to defend life and property, an act which objectively, but probably not morally subjectively, includes the preemptive defenses of killing for food and attacking enemies.

Why is this view wrong, if it is wrong.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jtj6hsByDYk

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 12:04 pm The world was such a wonderful, peaceful place before guns were invented...

Guns have exponentially increased the body counts. Before guns there were knives and swords, spears and arrows, rocks and stones, and fists and teeth. Violins has existed as long as there have been predators and competitors.

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:02 pm Guns have exponentially increased the body counts.

Citation needed. Statistically speaking - we live in the safest time in history. As measured by individual life expectancy.
Alas. This discussion always boils down to this: Do you want to FEEL safe or BE safe? Psychological safety or actual safety?

Before guns - my grandmother stood no chance against teenagers trying to rob her. My girlfriend stood no chance against a man trying to rape her.

Hell. I stand no chance against two or more guys trying to rob me!

Now we do. Guns have evened out the playing field for those of us who have neither the inclination nor the physique to master the use of swords. Guns have removed the monopoly on force.

Si vis pacem, para bellum. https://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/ ... ilization/

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:46 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:02 pm Guns have exponentially increased the body counts.

Citation needed. Statistically speaking - we live in the safest time in history. As measured by individual life expectancy.
Alas. This discussion always boils down to this: Do you want to FEEL safe or BE safe? Psychological safety or actual safety?

Before guns - my grandmother stood no chance against teenagers trying to rob her. My girlfriend stood no chance against a man trying to rape her.

Hell. I stand no chance against two or more guys trying to rob me!

Now we do. Guns have evened out the playing field for those of us who have neither the inclination nor the physique to master the use of swords. Guns have removed the monopoly on force.

Si vis pacem, para bellum. https://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/ ... ilization/

Mea culpa! “Exponentially” is hyperbole. It may have been more fitting to say that violence resulting from gunfire has increased somewhat the degree of harm caused. Even that requires support.

Still, I wonder about Kloos’s credibility as a writer who posts his unsupported opinions on a website that merely offers to help people to create their own websites.

And I cannot readily agree that life expectancy is a measure of safety.

The answer to your rhetorical question is that normal people will always prefer to feel safe more than to be safe. Perceived risk v actual risk proves this point.

To carry a gun for self-protection means to be prepared and willing to use it for full effect. The result is that civilized people must be ready to mete out the death penalty to a mugger, or even to an innocent who appears to be dangerous according to a jury of one.

Perhaps a study needs to be conducted on the cost and effectiveness of body cams, as well as the consequences and ramifications of them as a deterrent to violence. If the perp thinks a conviction is certain...

I enjoyed reading your post. Although I disagree with the claim that guns are indicators of civilization, there was much to think about in your words.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 5:18 pm Mea culpa! “Exponentially” is hyperbole. It may have been more fitting to say that violence resulting from gunfire has increased somewhat the degree of harm caused. Even that requires support.

So you have gone from a hyperbole to cherry-picking.

The overall death rate, crime rate and injury rate GLOBALLY is on the decline! It has been for 500 years. https://ourworldindata.org/homicides

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 5:18 pm Still, I wonder about Kloos’s credibility as a writer who posts his unsupported opinions on a website that merely offers to help people to create their own websites.

...and ad hominem.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 5:18 pm And I cannot readily agree that life expectancy is a measure of safety.

OK. What do you propose as a better measure of safety than the statistical e.g QUANTIFIED likelihood of your death or injury?

It is BECAUSE we prevent <bad things> from happening to people is why they live longer!

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 5:18 pm The answer to your rhetorical question is that normal people will always prefer to feel safe more than to be safe. Perceived risk v actual risk proves this point.

Bandwagon fallacy. By your definition I do not wish to be "normal". I CHOOSE actual safety. Results!
Which is why statistical analysis works - we measure the effects at social scale, not at individual scale.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 5:18 pm To carry a gun for self-protection means to be prepared and willing to use it for full effect. The result is that civilized people must be ready to mete out the death penalty to a mugger, or even to an innocent who appears to be dangerous according to a jury of one.

So you distrust people to have good judgment? Nobody wants to endure the emotional trauma of taking a human life. Nor the emotional and financial trauma of enduring a lengthy trial and paying for lawyers! Nor risking prison! Taking a mugger's life is the last thing I want to do - for purely selfish reasons. I don't give a shit about him - it's too much paperwork and stress! So the gun is to make sure I stay alive. You want my wallet? Take it! I'll get a new credit card tomorrow.

You want my phone? Take it too. It's insured - just let me keep my SIM card because getting a new one is a pain in the ass.
You want my laptop? I got a backup. It's insured also - I need an upgrade anyway.

But if at any point I perceive aggression and risk of injury or death to self or my loved ones - then I will do everything in my power to end the mugger-turned-violent-robber life before he harms anyone.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 5:18 pm Perhaps a study needs to be conducted on the cost and effectiveness of body cams, as well as the consequences and ramifications of them as a deterrent to violence. If the perp thinks a conviction is certain...

Without a criterion for measuring "safety" or "more cililised" vs "less civilised" I don't think a study can shed any light. Science does not produce our values.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 5:18 pm I enjoyed reading your post. Although I disagree with the claim that guns are indicators of civilization, there was much to think about in your words.

I am not saying they are indicators of civilisation either. But I am saying that their presence is an indication of individual freedom. For only in a free and civilised society is one allowed to own guns. And as much as I want civilisation - I do not want it at the cost of personal freedom.

And no society which forbids me from owning guns is a society I care to live in.

Sorry. I thought infant mortality rates were factored into life expectancy.

Would “from guns” serve better than the cherrypicked term, “gunfire “?

Kloos earned an ad hominem by being cited as a reference.

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:18 pm Sorry. I thought infant mortality rates were factored into life expectancy.

It doesn't really matter. We have a handful of metrics which we are tracking.

Infant mortality (like life expectancy) is also going in the right direction: https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality