Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Sam Harris: A Philosophical Case for Guns

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 11:14:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ethical Importance of Guns

Like most gun owners, I understand the ethical importance of guns and cannot honestly wish for a world without them. I suspect that sentiment will shock many readers. Wouldn"t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn"t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want.

A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?

Distorted Perception vs. Facts

Fifty-five million kids went to school on the day that 20 were massacred at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. Even in the United States, therefore, the chances of a child"s dying in a school shooting are remote. As my friend Steven Pinker demonstrates in his monumental study of human violence, The Better Angels of Our Nature, our perception of danger is easily distorted by rare events. Is gun violence increasing in the United States? No.

Seventy mass shootings have occurred in the U.S. since 1982, leaving 543 dead. These crimes were horrific, but 564,452 other homicides took place in the U.S. during the same period. Mass shootings scarcely represent 0.1 percent of all murders. When talking about the problem of guns in our society, it is easy to lose sight of the worst violence and to become fixated on symbols of violence.

Gun Violence Not the Worst Risk

Of course, it is important to think about the problem of gun violence in the context of other risks. For instance, it is estimated that 100,000 Americans die each year because doctors and nurses fail to wash their hands properly. Measured in bodies, therefore, the problem of hand washing in hospitals is worse than the problem of guns, even if we include accidents and suicides.

Knife Violence

There has been an epidemic of knife attacks on schoolchildren in China in the past two years. As Fallows certainly knows"he is, after all, an expert on China"in some instances several children were murdered. In March of 2010, eight were killed and five injured in a single incident. This was as bad as many mass shootings in the U.S. I am not denying that guns are more efficient for killing people than knives are"but the truth is that knives are often lethal enough. And the only reliable way for one person to stop a man with a knife is to shoot him.

Most Common and Least Stigmatized Weapons are Among the Most Dangerous

The problem, therefore, is that with respect to either factor that makes a gun suitable for mass murder"ease of concealment (a handgun) or range (a rifle)"the most common and least stigmatized weapons are among the most dangerous. Gun-control advocates seem perversely unaware of this. As a consequence, we routinely hear the terms "semi-automatic" and "assault weapon" intoned with misplaced outrage and awe. It is true that a semi-automatic pistol allows a person to shoot and reload slightly more efficiently than a revolver does. But a revolver can be reloaded surprisingly quickly with a device known as a speed loader. (These have been in use since the 1970s.)[4] It is no exaggeration to say that if we merely had 300 million vintage revolvers in this country, we would still have a terrible problem with gun violence, with no solution in sight. And any person entering a school with a revolver for the purpose of killing kids would most likely be able to keep killing them until he ran out of ammunition, or until good people arrived with guns of their own to stop him.

Gun-Free Environment and Fetal Position

Needless to say, it is easy to see how things can go badly when anyone draws a firearm defensively. But when an armed man enters an office building, restaurant, or school for the purpose of murdering everyone in sight, things are going very badly already. Imagine being one of the people in the Houston video trapped in the office with no recourse but to hide under a desk. Would you really be relieved to know that up until that moment, your workplace had been an impeccably gun-free environment and that no one, not even your friend who did three tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, would be armed?

If you found yourself trapped with others in a conference room, preparing to attack the shooter with pencils and chairs, can you imagine thinking, "I"m so glad no one else has a gun, because I wouldn"t want to get caught in any crossfire"? Despite what the New York Times and dozens of other editorial pages have avowed in the weeks since Newtown, it isn"t a vigilante delusion to believe that guns in the hands of good people would improve the odds of survival in deadly encounters of this kind. The delusion is to think that everyone would be better off defending his or her life with furniture.

Conclusion

Clearly, we need more resources in the areas of childhood and teenage mental health, and we need protocols for parents, teachers, and fellow students to follow when a young man in their midst begins to worry them. In the majority of cases, someone planning a public assassination or a mass murder will communicate his intentions to others in advance of the crime. People need to feel personally responsible for acting on this information"and the authorities must be able to do something once the information gets passed along. But again, any law that allows us to commit or imprison people on the basis of a mere perception of risk would guarantee that large numbers of innocent people will be held against their will.

Rather than new laws, I believe we need a general shift in our attitude toward public violence"wherein everyone begins to assume some responsibility for containing it. It is worth noting that this shift has already occurred in one area of our lives, without anyone"s having received special training or even agreeing that a change in attitude was necessary: Just imagine how a few men with box cutters would now be greeted by their fellow passengers at 30,000 feet.

Perhaps we can find the same resolve on the ground.

Footnote: According to one source cited by Goldberg, concealed-carry permit holders not only commit fewer crimes than members of the general public"they commit fewer crimes than police officers. It is certainly possible that in states with stringent requirements, civilians who take the trouble to go through the permitting process will be an unusually scrupulous bunch.

Source: http://www.samharris.org...

Parsed and annotated by me.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
LatentDebater
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 12:31:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
As cute as the idea of gun rights is, there is no reason for a government hoping for its police to have an upper hand on its people to allow such a thing.
I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it.

People who think they know everything are extremely irritating to those of us who do.

"If you believe in a god, just tell me why you don't believe in all the other gods. The reasons you give will be why I don't believe in yours." - Ricky THEGENIUS Gervais
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 1:08:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 11:14:59 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Ethical Importance of Guns

Like most gun owners, I understand the ethical importance of guns and cannot honestly wish for a world without them. I suspect that sentiment will shock many readers. Wouldn"t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn"t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want.

I wonder if this point could be used by feminists?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 2:52:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 12:31:48 PM, LatentDebater wrote:
As cute as the idea of gun rights is, there is no reason for a government hoping for its police to have an upper hand on its people to allow such a thing.

Police aren't supposed to have an upper hand on the people. They're supposed to have an upper hand on the criminals.

Your plan is to have the criminals have the upper hand over citizens when police take 10 minutes to arrive to the scene and you're dead because you were unarmed.

You failed to rebuttal any of Sam Harris' points.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 3:02:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 11:14:59 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want.

This one actually gave me pause. As a fervent feminist, the idea that guns could close the gap in physical power between men and women has some appeal.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 3:55:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 11:14:59 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?

Aggression and numbers apply as well to guns as to fists or any other weapon. As for the others, they're distributed more equitably; if size, strength and youth were decisive hundreds of years ago, "slavery wouldn't have been a chapter in our history".

Of course, it is important to think about the problem of gun violence in the context of other risks. For instance, it is estimated that 100,000 Americans die each year because doctors and nurses fail to wash their hands properly. Measured in bodies, therefore, the problem of hand washing in hospitals is worse than the problem of guns, even if we include accidents and suicides.

Do deaths from improper washing of medical professionals' hands exceed lives saved by medical professionals? Because deaths from guns exceed lives saved by guns.

There has been an epidemic of knife attacks on schoolchildren in China in the past two years. As Fallows certainly knows"he is, after all, an expert on China"in some instances several children were murdered. In March of 2010, eight were killed and five injured in a single incident. This was as bad as many mass shootings in the U.S. I am not denying that guns are more efficient for killing people than knives are"but the truth is that knives are often lethal enough. And the only reliable way for one person to stop a man with a knife is to shoot him.

If stopping a man with a knife by stabbing him is unreliable, doesn't it stand to reason that stopping a man with a gun by shooting him is unreliable?

Gun-Free Environment and Fetal Position

Why go the circuitous and costly route of arming criminals and then discouraging them with guns of our own when other countries have proven the effectiveness of just eliminating the legal gun trade that ultimately arms both?
thett3
Posts: 14,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 5:12:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 3:02:57 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 1/30/2013 11:14:59 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want.

This one actually gave me pause. As a fervent feminist, the idea that guns could close the gap in physical power between men and women has some appeal.

I'm not sure if this is a true quote, but it's been said that the people living in the American west post-civil war used to say "Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal." Guns certainly do provide leverage for the oppressed.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 5:22:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 3:55:59 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 1/30/2013 11:14:59 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?

Aggression and numbers apply as well to guns as to fists or any other weapon.

Only if everyone has weapons. One man with a shotgun or a handgun if he knew what he was doing would be able to kill several attackers with fists

As for the others, they're distributed more equitably; if size, strength and youth were decisive hundreds of years ago, "slavery wouldn't have been a chapter in our history".

??? pretty sure the European technological advancement was what allowed them to oppress and enslave others.

Of course, it is important to think about the problem of gun violence in the context of other risks. For instance, it is estimated that 100,000 Americans die each year because doctors and nurses fail to wash their hands properly. Measured in bodies, therefore, the problem of hand washing in hospitals is worse than the problem of guns, even if we include accidents and suicides.

Do deaths from improper washing of medical professionals' hands exceed lives saved by medical professionals? Because deaths from guns exceed lives saved by guns.

Do you have any evidence of that? At least one scholarly estimate suggests that firearms are used in self defense once every 13 seconds (http://civilliberty.about.com...) More importantly, that isnt an argument. There are tons of things that end more lives than they save like cars, staircases, cigarettes, and pretty much anything really (there isnt much that *saves* lives) but we arent banning those. Harris's argument was attempting to demonstrate that gun violence is an exaggerated problem.


There has been an epidemic of knife attacks on schoolchildren in China in the past two years. As Fallows certainly knows"he is, after all, an expert on China"in some instances several children were murdered. In March of 2010, eight were killed and five injured in a single incident. This was as bad as many mass shootings in the U.S. I am not denying that guns are more efficient for killing people than knives are"but the truth is that knives are often lethal enough. And the only reliable way for one person to stop a man with a knife is to shoot him.

If stopping a man with a knife by stabbing him is unreliable, doesn't it stand to reason that stopping a man with a gun by shooting him is unreliable?

wtf no. Its a lot harder to kill a man in hand to hand combat, they can over power you and most psychological evidence showsthat the aversion to kill grows stronger the closer you get physically to a person. Many people who arent sociopaths when placed in that kind of situation will slash rather than stab, so you wont be able to kill the culprit, they'll kill you and then others. Compare this to shooting them.


Gun-Free Environment and Fetal Position

Why go the circuitous and costly route of arming criminals and then discouraging them with guns of our own when other countries have proven the effectiveness of just eliminating the legal gun trade that ultimately arms both?

Probably because they havent shown any effectiveness.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 7:50:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 5:22:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Only if everyone has weapons. One man with a shotgun or a handgun if he knew what he was doing would be able to kill several attackers with fists

Or innocent people with fists, yes, and two people with guns would be able to kill twice as many people with fists, or one person with a gun and several people with fists, etc. The point is that guns don't necessarily negate the advantage of numbers, they just constitute an additional, less democratic, more plutocratic advantage.

??? pretty sure the European technological advancement was what allowed them to oppress and enslave others.

Yes, germs and technology, especially in the forms of guns and steel. In the specific case of slavery, guns were crucial.

Do you have any evidence of that? At least one scholarly estimate suggests that firearms are used in self defense once every 13 seconds (http://civilliberty.about.com...) More importantly, that isnt an argument. There are tons of things that end more lives than they save like cars, staircases, cigarettes, and pretty much anything really (there isnt much that *saves* lives) but we arent banning those.

But we at least correct for externalities in forms like cigarette taxes and compulsory car insurance. Theoretically, gun sellers could be held similarly liable, but at a certain point a ban is just easier to enforce. As for your stat, self-defense is internal to the exchange and includes giving a trespasser the death penalty, so that tells us nothing.

wtf no. Its a lot harder to kill a man in hand to hand combat, they can over power you and most psychological evidence showsthat the aversion to kill grows stronger the closer you get physically to a person. Many people who arent sociopaths when placed in that kind of situation will slash rather than stab, so you wont be able to kill the culprit, they'll kill you and then others. Compare this to shooting them.

What, in an imaginary world where good guys have guns and bad guys have only knives? No, countries whose civilians have guns inevitably have criminals with guns. And the same element of distance that enables people to stomach killing in self-defense enables them stomach committing more violent crime.

Probably because they havent shown any effectiveness.

How do you figure? Where else but Mexico, which smuggles its weapons from the US, does gun control co-exist with high rates of violent crime?
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 8:18:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 7:50:30 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 1/30/2013 5:22:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Only if everyone has weapons. One man with a shotgun or a handgun if he knew what he was doing would be able to kill several attackers with fists

Or innocent people with fists, yes, and two people with guns would be able to kill twice as many people with fists, or one person with a gun and several people with fists, etc. The point is that guns don't necessarily negate the advantage of numbers, they just constitute an additional, less democratic, more plutocratic advantage.


And.......so what?

??? pretty sure the European technological advancement was what allowed them to oppress and enslave others.

Yes, germs and technology, especially in the forms of guns and steel. In the specific case of slavery, guns were crucial.


What's your point? It's an unfair advantage? Derp. That's why people want to have one when someone comes at them with one. So their not stuck with sticks and knives.

Do you have any evidence of that? At least one scholarly estimate suggests that firearms are used in self defense once every 13 seconds (http://civilliberty.about.com...) More importantly, that isnt an argument. There are tons of things that end more lives than they save like cars, staircases, cigarettes, and pretty much anything really (there isnt much that *saves* lives) but we arent banning those.

But we at least correct for externalities in forms like cigarette taxes and compulsory car insurance. Theoretically, gun sellers could be held similarly liable, but at a certain point a ban is just easier to enforce. As for your stat, self-defense is internal to the exchange and includes giving a trespasser the death penalty, so that tells us nothing.


I suppose we should also do that for knife sellers, and firework sellers. I mean, those can kill people.

wtf no. Its a lot harder to kill a man in hand to hand combat, they can over power you and most psychological evidence showsthat the aversion to kill grows stronger the closer you get physically to a person. Many people who arent sociopaths when placed in that kind of situation will slash rather than stab, so you wont be able to kill the culprit, they'll kill you and then others. Compare this to shooting them.

What, in an imaginary world where good guys have guns and bad guys have only knives? No, countries whose civilians have guns inevitably have criminals with guns. And the same element of distance that enables people to stomach killing in self-defense enables them stomach committing more violent crime.

He never said that criminals would only have knives. But if we illegalize guns, or make them much harder to get, it's us that will have the knives and the criminals that will have the guns.

And people that are committing a violent crime usually don't give a damn how they do it. If you wanna murder someone, you'll use your bare hands if you must.


Probably because they havent shown any effectiveness.

How do you figure? Where else but Mexico, which smuggles its weapons from the US, does gun control co-exist with high rates of violent crime?

England. High homicide rate for its size, no guns.

And we can always look at the Swiss. Hilariously low rates of crime, and guess what? EVERYONE has a gun.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 8:28:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In a country where freedom is the most prominent issue (what decision will preserve it most), having guns (to a reasonable point, obviously this is interpret-able) is completely appropriate and relevant.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 9:07:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 8:18:05 PM, OberHerr wrote:
What's your point? It's an unfair advantage? Derp. That's why people want to have one when someone comes at them with one. So their not stuck with sticks and knives.

The slaves didn't lack guns because of gun control, they lacked guns because neither guns nor the means to buy them were part of their wages. If the whites had lacked guns, sticks and stones would have been quite sufficient for emancipation.

I suppose we should also do that for knife sellers, and firework sellers. I mean, those can kill people.

Yeah, to the extent that they kill people external to the exchange, the should certainly be taxed. It's just that their relatively low body counts makes it relatively unimportant issue.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 9:12:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 9:07:19 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
The slaves didn't lack guns because of gun control, they lacked guns because neither guns nor the means to buy them were part of their wages. If the whites had lacked guns, sticks and stones would have been quite sufficient for emancipation.


Probably not, since they were still outnumbered severely, lacked organization, lacked the means, and probably lacked the will for many.

But, that aside, I'm getting the implication from you that if we illegalize guns, they will magically disappear. I would like to now point you to a lovely state where it is gun control is exceedingly high, almost to the point I believe where you cannot get a gun legally.: Illinois. Nuff said.

Yeah, to the extent that they kill people external to the exchange, the should certainly be taxed. It's just that their relatively low body counts makes it relatively unimportant issue.

So?

And also, why do you have this crazy idea of things that kill people = needs to be taxed? How does that follow?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
thett3
Posts: 14,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 9:20:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 7:50:30 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 1/30/2013 5:22:43 PM, thett3 wrote:
Only if everyone has weapons. One man with a shotgun or a handgun if he knew what he was doing would be able to kill several attackers with fists

Or innocent people with fists, yes, and two people with guns would be able to kill twice as many people with fists, or one person with a gun and several people with fists, etc. The point is that guns don't necessarily negate the advantage of numbers, they just constitute an additional, less democratic, more plutocratic advantage.

The thing is that that isnt an argument. You really dont seem to understand the nature of most confrontations...at all. Very few are fights to the death, and fewer involve guns. An armed citizen with a gun will be able to drive off gangs of rapists and muggers they ordinarily wouldnt be able to. In a fight to the death where both are armed you're right,but few muggers or rapists or other kinds of criminals are in it to the death.

??? pretty sure the European technological advancement was what allowed them to oppress and enslave others.

Yes, germs and technology, especially in the forms of guns and steel. In the specific case of slavery, guns were crucial.

Hence showing how unarmed populations suffer tyranny...pretty obvious.

Do you have any evidence of that? At least one scholarly estimate suggests that firearms are used in self defense once every 13 seconds (http://civilliberty.about.com...) More importantly, that isnt an argument. There are tons of things that end more lives than they save like cars, staircases, cigarettes, and pretty much anything really (there isnt much that *saves* lives) but we arent banning those.

But we at least correct for externalities in forms like cigarette taxes and compulsory car insurance.

Thats not that argument and I'm kind of amazed you didnt grasp that.The argument is that you cant ban everything that ends life. Probably every common household item has caused multiple deaths

Theoretically, gun sellers could be held similarly liable, but at a certain point a ban is just easier to enforce. As for your stat, self-defense is internal to the exchange and includes giving a trespasser the death penalty, so that tells us nothing.

Pay attention, if you actually read the study I linked you it says that the guns dont even have to be fired in most cases of defense.

wtf no. Its a lot harder to kill a man in hand to hand combat, they can over power you and most psychological evidence showsthat the aversion to kill grows stronger the closer you get physically to a person. Many people who arent sociopaths when placed in that kind of situation will slash rather than stab, so you wont be able to kill the culprit, they'll kill you and then others. Compare this to shooting them.

What, in an imaginary world where good guys have guns and bad guys have only knives?

What are you talking about?

No, countries whose civilians have guns inevitably have criminals with guns.

All countries have criminals with guns.

And the same element of distance that enables people to stomach killing in self-defense enables them stomach committing more violent crime.

Err no actually...there's a profound difference both psychologically and morally between self defense and aggression. I dont even see what you're trying to argue

Probably because they havent shown any effectiveness.

How do you figure? Where else but Mexico, which smuggles its weapons from the US, does gun control co-exist with high rates of violent crime?

Correlation=/= causation dude. Moreover its your burden to prove, not mine. Go send me some stats and I'll shoot them down if thats what you want
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 12:22:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 9:12:04 PM, OberHerr wrote:
But, that aside, I'm getting the implication from you that if we illegalize guns, they will magically disappear. I would like to now point you to a lovely state where it is gun control is exceedingly high, almost to the point I believe where you cannot get a gun legally.: Illinois. Nuff said.

Illinois shares an open border with an armed rest of the country, so getting around a ban is as easy as driving. If crime instead had to produce its own weapons, they'd at least injure themselves and miss more, but more likely just resign themselves to the unavailability as in the UK.

And also, why do you have this crazy idea of things that kill people = needs to be taxed? How does that follow?

It doesn't, which is why I didn't say that. Suicide, for instance, needn't be reflected in taxes, because the injury is to the buyer and thus already reflected in price. Where free markets fail is where the injured party isn't party to the exchange and getting the buyer or thief to fully compensate after the realization of risk is impossible or impractical.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 1:26:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 9:20:04 PM, thett3 wrote:
The thing is that that isnt an argument. You really dont seem to understand the nature of most confrontations...at all. Very few are fights to the death, and fewer involve guns. An armed citizen with a gun will be able to drive off gangs of rapists and muggers they ordinarily wouldnt be able to. In a fight to the death where both are armed you're right,but few muggers or rapists or other kinds of criminals are in it to the death.

I understand that. That's why they use guns in crimes that would otherwise have a high probability of resulting in death, such as crimes against greater numbers. But if you mean that, in the absence of guns, they would be more likely to end up in prison than dead, and prison doesn't scare them, that sounds more like an argument for expanding the death penalty, or at least addressing the effective prison that is poverty.

Hence showing how unarmed populations suffer tyranny...pretty obvious.

But the conquered peoples didn't suffer gun bans, they suffered a relative lack of guns' requisite resources, and continue to.

Pay attention, if you actually read the study I linked you it says that the guns dont even have to be fired in most cases of defense.

That doesn't change the internal nature of self-defense. The scope of Pigovian taxes and subsidies is externalities. As guns are at least as useful at arming the offenses they're meant to defend against, it's reasonable that a Pigovian tax's effect on gun demand would be such that the cost of enforcing it, relative to a ban, would exceed the revenue.

Correlation=/= causation dude. Moreover its your burden to prove, not mine. Go send me some stats and I'll shoot them down if thats what you want

No, as my position is simply that the resources spent on zero-sum gun production would be better spent otherwise, I needn't demonstrate that, for example, the UK's low violent crime rates are due to gun control. On the contrary, low inequality, for instance, is a much better predictor of non-violence. But the fact that other countries have freed up resources that would otherwise be wasted on guns, without the dire consequences predicted by the gun lobby, is evidence enough for me.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:04:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm now against gun control.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:09:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:04:19 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
This is the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm now against gun control.

I'd imagine your principles always were against it, being an an-com.
Often one makes mistakes of judgement, against one's principles, but when one fails to reconcile judgement with principle more often then not, principles win.