N
Nihilo
Guest
Yes, by you.
I’ve never actually seen someone shown their point as stated is invalid, and then just declare victory.
- Status
I’ve never actually seen someone shown their point as stated is invalid, and then just declare victory.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
YOu asked for a parallel between fetuses and poc. I provided it.
Then out of nowhere you made further parallel (“so do”) with corpses and amputated limbs. Pretty stunning.
N
Nihilo
Guest
Yes I know. You said they have human DNA.Nihilo:
YOu asked for a parallel between fetuses and poc. I provided it.
Thus showing your point as stated is invalid.Nihilo:
And then you declared victory.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
that doesn’t disprove a parallel between fetuses and poc
all it does it evidence a parallel you believe exists between poc and corpses/limbs, which is disturbing.
and does support the overarching point that the same logic that supports both abortion and slavery (which was why the fetus -poc parallel was requested) is rooted in viewing both as objects, as your post did
N
Nihilo
Guest
Slower.Nihilo:
that doesn’t disprove a parallel between fetuses and poc
all it does it evidence a parallel you believe exists between poc and corpses/limbs, which is disturbing.
and does support the overarching point that the same logic that supports both abortion and slavery (which was why the fetus -poc parallel was requested) is rooted in viewing both as objects, as your post did
You are the one who believes there’s a parallel between poc, human embryos /fetuses, and corpses and amputated limbs, based upon your stated point that they all have human DNA.
The door is open for you to revise your point so that corpses and amputated limbs (for examples) are not parallel to poc and human embryos /fetuses.
'Ball’s in your court.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
No that was you. I’ll keep quoting you to disprove that false assertion.
You raised that parallel (“so do”) to compare corpses/limbs with poc. Disgusting. Keep replying and I’ll keep quoting your post
Last edited:
E
Elf01
Guest
A fetus is a living human organism. The others are not.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Come, folks. It’s been ten posts since anything even remotely related to stopping gun violence was mentioned. Can we get back to the topic?
S
steve-b
Guest
Once again: if they hadn’t the gun, it would have been much more difficult to accomplish what they did.
If we look at school shooters, and imagine them having, say, a knife or dagger instead, the fact that they would have to be within a much closer proximity to the people that they are intended to murder makes the odds behind them causing a massacre less likely.
Not impossible, but far less likely.
There is a reason that guns were called “death sticks” (and similar) by some populations that didn’t have them long ago. Imagine if they could have seen the death sticks of today!
Side Note (click to expand)
I find it amusing that cigarettes have also been called “death sticks”. Quite fitting.
Again, I say: what a cowardly weapon the gun is.
This is also a good time to address the common, but very misguided, maxim often used by firearm enthusiasts: “if guns are criminalised, only criminals will have guns”.
“if grenades are criminalised in the civilian world, only criminals will have grenades”
“if narcotics remain criminalised, only criminals will…”
You get where I’m going with this. That bizarre maxim is trite, and I am surprised that it is still repeated so often, even though it is easily refuted.
[/quote]
Do you know how many innocent children are murdered each and every day, “legally” not just in this country but world wide, by abortion?
Re: criminal activity…look up THOSE statistics. Gun violence statistics is tiny in comparison.
If we look at school shooters, and imagine them having, say, a knife or dagger instead, the fact that they would have to be within a much closer proximity to the people that they are intended to murder makes the odds behind them causing a massacre less likely.
Not impossible, but far less likely.
There is a reason that guns were called “death sticks” (and similar) by some populations that didn’t have them long ago. Imagine if they could have seen the death sticks of today!
Side Note (click to expand)
I find it amusing that cigarettes have also been called “death sticks”. Quite fitting.
Again, I say: what a cowardly weapon the gun is.
This is a silly comment. We already block highly destructive weapons like grenades. With regard to knives in particular have a non-violent purpose: to cut food, for instance.
This is also a good time to address the common, but very misguided, maxim often used by firearm enthusiasts: “if guns are criminalised, only criminals will have guns”.
“if grenades are criminalised in the civilian world, only criminals will have grenades”
“if narcotics remain criminalised, only criminals will…”
You get where I’m going with this. That bizarre maxim is trite, and I am surprised that it is still repeated so often, even though it is easily refuted.
[/quote]
Do you know how many innocent children are murdered each and every day, “legally” not just in this country but world wide, by abortion?
Re: criminal activity…look up THOSE statistics. Gun violence statistics is tiny in comparison.
Last edited:
R
RCIAGraduate
Guest
Could this be remediated through government measures like funding mentoring programs for at-risk/high-risk young people; I found two interesting models that could/model warrant replication. It’s not perfect but it’s something. And I know it looks like/is government supplanting the role of families but what about those who aren’t born to families they can’t rely on or with little social supports growing up, what options are there for them?
J
jesusmademe
Guest
Well you don’t wanna say it but the discussion here in Sweden goes like this: immigrants and children of immigrants are the guys who shoot people. I am sure other Swedes shoot people as well but you know how easy it is to make all of this a discussion on the politics on immigration.
Last edited:
B
Brendan
Guest
As an automotive engineer, this is where I see the false dichotomy. Automotive safety has been focused on the safe operation of the device. In other words, so that in normal operation, the operator does not incur injury.
In that regard, firearm safety is pretty much on par with automotive safety. If the device is used as recommended by the manufacturer, the operator is highly unlikely to be injured.
What we are talking about in both cases, is the improper and\or illegal use of the product. And I do see many parallels, and thus no false dichotomy
B
Brendan
Guest
Some are, mostly hunting guns. Others are designed to put holes in paper, still others are designed to break flying clay disks.
Most others are designed as deterrents and to stop attack. Which is different than being designed to cause death. The distinction is similar to a car being designed for speed is not the same thing as a car being designed to evade police pursuit.
Most others are designed as deterrents and to stop attack. Which is different than being designed to cause death. The distinction is similar to a car being designed for speed is not the same thing as a car being designed to evade police pursuit.
S
steve-b
Guest
You… you do realise that I am pro-life, right?
[/quote]
My point is,
Given all the reported massacres in the U.S. due to guns, for let’s say the last 50 years, they all revolve around one horribly disordered person in each case doing the harm. Meaning let’s say 500 incidents occurred, then 500 individuals did such horrible crimes… that’s out of hundreds of millions of people who didn’t and won’t do such things. My point is, The overwhelming number of people aren’t in that category even though they do or might own a gun. As I said before, the gun isn’t the problem. It’s the person behind the gun that makes the difference.
I don’t see what your point is. Of course legalised infanticide (which is what abortion is, and always has been) would have higher numbers. Infants are at their most vulnerable state in life, and people prefer to kill the weak.
[/quote]
My point is,
Given all the reported massacres in the U.S. due to guns, for let’s say the last 50 years, they all revolve around one horribly disordered person in each case doing the harm. Meaning let’s say 500 incidents occurred, then 500 individuals did such horrible crimes… that’s out of hundreds of millions of people who didn’t and won’t do such things. My point is, The overwhelming number of people aren’t in that category even though they do or might own a gun. As I said before, the gun isn’t the problem. It’s the person behind the gun that makes the difference.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
The original gun was designed to kill. I’m talking about the original gun. It is irrelevant that some are more intended to “deter” attack nowadays. That was hardly their original purpose.
[/quote]
Hunting and protection, was the original purpose of the gun. Just like the bow and arrow
(name removed by moderator):
Very few
Some stats show suicide by gun is higher than homicide by gun HERE
If one took away all the guns, do you think that would reduce suicides?
(name removed by moderator):
(name removed by moderator):
Did I say they were, or make those points you accuse me of? No
(name removed by moderator):
If they hadn’t the gun, I would suggest THOSE disturbed individuals, would find something else to use.
example
Last edited:
B
Brendan
Guest
Are you really trying to claim that the original purpose of an invention defines the purpose of all subsequent designs?
The original jet aircraft was designed to shoot down US bombers. Should I be able to infer that Airbus designed the A380 to shoot down American bombers, or did the engineers have some other design goal.
The original liquid fuel rocket was designed to drop warheads on London. Should I be able to infer that the SpaceX Falcon has been designed to bomb London, or did the engineers there have some other design goal?
Spread Spectrum frequency hopping was developed to guide torpedoes to Japanese ships in a way that could not be jammed. Does that mean that WiFi routers are designed to securely sink Japanese ships??
The club was originally developed as a weapon of defense and of hunting, but what does that have to say about the purpose of a Titleist putter?
In general, if you want to know what something was designed for, would be not be advantageous to ask the engineers involved, or at least look at their publicly stated purpose?
The original jet aircraft was designed to shoot down US bombers. Should I be able to infer that Airbus designed the A380 to shoot down American bombers, or did the engineers have some other design goal.
The original liquid fuel rocket was designed to drop warheads on London. Should I be able to infer that the SpaceX Falcon has been designed to bomb London, or did the engineers there have some other design goal?
Spread Spectrum frequency hopping was developed to guide torpedoes to Japanese ships in a way that could not be jammed. Does that mean that WiFi routers are designed to securely sink Japanese ships??
The club was originally developed as a weapon of defense and of hunting, but what does that have to say about the purpose of a Titleist putter?
In general, if you want to know what something was designed for, would be not be advantageous to ask the engineers involved, or at least look at their publicly stated purpose?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Automobiles are not designed as weapons of death. Guns are.
[/quote]
While this might be true, it is not the best way to draw a distinction between automobiles and guns vis-à-vis regulations. The real reason for different treatment is statistical, not absolute. The cost/benefit ratio for automobiles is such we as a society have decided to accept some level of deaths because of the huge benefit we derive from automobiles. Even so, we try to establish some regulations on automobiles to minimize those deaths without too much loss in benefits. This is done in terms of speed limits, manufacturing safety standards, and driver training and certification. If the same kind of thinking is applied to guns, we would recognize that the benefit to society of having guns is much more limited than the benefit of cars. There is certainly some benefit, such as ranchers controlling predators, and a huge benefit to a very small number of random individuals who actually find it necessary to use a gun to defend their very life. But while the benefit is huge to those few people, it is zero to most everyone else. That certainly cannot be said of cars, where almost everyone benefits in some way from there being cars in use - even people who do not drive themselves.
But when gun control is opposed, you rarely see any attempt to try to make a quantitative comparison against the cost/benefit ratio for cars. Instead they opt for absolutist arguments appealing to constitutional rights. But I would like to see someone make a serious attempt at justifying a reduction in gun regulations, or justifying opposition to additional regulations, based on a relative cost/benefit comparison. Note: To establish that
A/B > C/D
where
A = benefit of guns to society
B = cost to society of having guns
C = benefit of cars to society
D = cost to society of having cars
It is not sufficient to point out that D > B. Yet that is the only comparison that opponents of gun regulations cite. (Along with the claim that A is “pretty big” too, but not in any relative sense.)
[/quote]
While this might be true, it is not the best way to draw a distinction between automobiles and guns vis-à-vis regulations. The real reason for different treatment is statistical, not absolute. The cost/benefit ratio for automobiles is such we as a society have decided to accept some level of deaths because of the huge benefit we derive from automobiles. Even so, we try to establish some regulations on automobiles to minimize those deaths without too much loss in benefits. This is done in terms of speed limits, manufacturing safety standards, and driver training and certification. If the same kind of thinking is applied to guns, we would recognize that the benefit to society of having guns is much more limited than the benefit of cars. There is certainly some benefit, such as ranchers controlling predators, and a huge benefit to a very small number of random individuals who actually find it necessary to use a gun to defend their very life. But while the benefit is huge to those few people, it is zero to most everyone else. That certainly cannot be said of cars, where almost everyone benefits in some way from there being cars in use - even people who do not drive themselves.
But when gun control is opposed, you rarely see any attempt to try to make a quantitative comparison against the cost/benefit ratio for cars. Instead they opt for absolutist arguments appealing to constitutional rights. But I would like to see someone make a serious attempt at justifying a reduction in gun regulations, or justifying opposition to additional regulations, based on a relative cost/benefit comparison. Note: To establish that
A/B > C/D
where
A = benefit of guns to society
B = cost to society of having guns
C = benefit of cars to society
D = cost to society of having cars
It is not sufficient to point out that D > B. Yet that is the only comparison that opponents of gun regulations cite. (Along with the claim that A is “pretty big” too, but not in any relative sense.)
P
pnewton
Guest
Just because there are parallels do not mean there is a false dichotomy. The false dichotomy I was referring to is the root of whataboutism. The discussion here is on stopping gun violence. We can as a country can work in more than one pro-life direction, that is making automobiles safer and reducing gun violence. We can also work on medical research. We can reduce work place fatalities, etc.
S
steve-b
Guest
I’m pretty sure that when the gun was invented and first used in China, it wasn’t created for particularly friendly and harmless purposes.
Classical bows and arrows, as well as crossbows, already existed. The gun was created to make killing easier. It’s really as simple as that.
Automobiles were in no way initially designed to cause death.
There is no real comparison.
A bullet to the brain is pretty clear cut when it comes to death, after all. People still miss sometimes, sure, but more often than not they succeed when they do it.
The way(s) that we deal with the safety of a weapon of great death ought to be quite different from the way(s) that we deal with vehicle safety.
Although both can cause death, only one had death as its purpose from the get-go.
[/quote]
(name removed by moderator),
It’s clear we are talking past each other. As I understand there are ~5 million AR15’s in the U.S. population. That in itself, is a massive army. Are things out of control? No
As I understand, there are 300 million firearms (of all types) within the U.S. population. The links I showed previously shows the biggest gun violence in our country is suicide. If it wasn’t by gun, would suicide be by some other means?
I would just say, the fact this population is so well armed, makes any possible attacker/invader of this country think twice.
Classical bows and arrows, as well as crossbows, already existed. The gun was created to make killing easier. It’s really as simple as that.
Automobiles were in no way initially designed to cause death.
There is no real comparison.
Again, people are not statistics. What number is “very few” to you? Are those people collateral damage for the right of the everyman to possess a gun, in your mind?
Not necessarily by any means, but it could potentially make the likelihood of success (at the suicide attempt) decrease, even if slightly, for a number of people.
A bullet to the brain is pretty clear cut when it comes to death, after all. People still miss sometimes, sure, but more often than not they succeed when they do it.
Not explicitly, but the way that you phrased your post came off to me that way. If that is not your attitude, then I apologise for misconstruing your attitude.
And I would suggest that their likelihood of success with that ‘something else’ would, in many cases, be nowhere near as effective.
If you recall, I made my comments as an objection to this:
The way(s) that we deal with the safety of a weapon of great death ought to be quite different from the way(s) that we deal with vehicle safety.
Although both can cause death, only one had death as its purpose from the get-go.
[/quote]
(name removed by moderator),
It’s clear we are talking past each other. As I understand there are ~5 million AR15’s in the U.S. population. That in itself, is a massive army. Are things out of control? No
As I understand, there are 300 million firearms (of all types) within the U.S. population. The links I showed previously shows the biggest gun violence in our country is suicide. If it wasn’t by gun, would suicide be by some other means?
I would just say, the fact this population is so well armed, makes any possible attacker/invader of this country think twice.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Studies have shown that when firearm availability is reduced, many suicides are prevented. So the answer to your question is “no.”
This is just wrong. Attackers and invaders are not going to be using 19th century warfare technology. They would drop bombs. All the AR-15s in the hand of civilians is not going to do a thing against them. And if it is not from bombs, it will be from cyber attacks of our infrastructure. Only in a fantasy movie would attackers try going house to house through the US, or any modern country, armed or not, to dominate them.
- Status