Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    40,950

    Guns are stupid, important or what?

    The problem isn't guns. Guns are stupid. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. It's been a very long time since I sat in a Philosophy class, but I can't see that being any kind of fallacy at all. A gun is a machine - incapable of volition.

    Most think the 'Guns don't kill people; people kill people' argument is fallacious. it is an Irrelevant Conclusion -- argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument from ignorance. The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.
    Or it might be a verbal fallacy -- Fallacy of equivocation. Equivocation consists in employing the same word in two or more senses, e.g. in a syllogism, the middle term being used in one sense in the major and another in the minor premise, so that in fact there are four not three terms.
    Example Argument: All heavy things have a great mass; this is heavy fog; therefore this fog has a great mass.
    Problem: Heavy describes more than just weight. In the case of fog it means that the fog is dense not that it has a great mass.


    For the past three and a half million years, the tools that we've had have been completely passive. They do exactly what we tell them and nothing more. Our very first tool only cut where we struck it. The chisel only carves where the artist points it. Even our most advanced tools do nothing without our explicit direction. To date, we've always been limited by this need to manually push our wills into our tools. Manually, literally using our hands, even with computers. We demand obedience from our things.
    -- Maurice Conti (2017)
    A bad gun is one that disobeys. When you drop it it goes off. When you pull the trigger it doesn't. People, designers, testers, owners, spend a lot of time ensuring that firearms are obedient, because either of those two events can be very bad. Police won't buy smart guns, because they're worried they won't be obedient.


    The argument under consideration clarifies that, when it comes to murders, people are the ultimate cause and guns are merely proximate causes—the end of a causal chain that started with a person deciding to murder. But nothing follows from these facts about whether or not guns should be regulated. Such facts are true for all criminal activity, and even noncriminal activity that harms others: The ultimate cause is found in some decision that a person made; the event, activity, or object that most directly did the harming was only a proximate cause. But this tells us nothing about whether or not the proximate cause in question should be regulated or made illegal. For example, consider the following argument:

    "Bazookas don't kill people; people kill people."

    Although it is obviously true that bazookas are only proximate causes, it clearly does not follow that bazookas should be legal. Yes, bazookas don't kill people, people do—but bazookas make it a lot easier for people to kill people, and in great numbers. Further, a bazooka would not be useful for much else besides mass murders. Bazookas clearly should be illegal and the fact that they would only be proximate causes to mass murders does not change this. In fact, it is totally irrelevant to the issue; it has nothing to do the fact that they should be illegal. Why? Because other things are proximate causes to people’s demise, but obviously shouldn’t be illegal. For example, consider this argument (given in the aftermath of a bad car accident):

    "Cars don't kill people; people kill people."

    Obviously cars should not be illegal, but notice that this has nothing to do with the fact that they are proximate causes. Of course, they should be regulated; I shouldn't be allowed to go onto the highway in a car with no brakes. But all of that has to do what cars are for (they are not made for killing people), what role they play in society (it couldn't function without them) and so on. It's a complicated issue—one to which pointing out that cars are merely proximate causes to some deaths contributes nothing.

    So clearly the argument under consideration, and any other argument that merely points out that guns are proximate causes ("stop blaming the guns and start blaming the person") is fallacious. Since people can't seem to agree on what fallacy such arguments employ, I would like to give a name to the mistake I have identified within them: "the fallacy of mistaking the relevance of proximate causation."


    Guns would be fine if we didn't have crazy people. 99% of gun owners wouldn't kill anyone in a billion years. But 1% are crazy, and when you put them together with guns they kill people. Therefore we must ban guns. I know it's a debate, that's why I'm only proposing to get rid of handguns and assault weapons now. This is not my idea. It's a popular idea.

    Crazy people use cars, bombs, gasoline, sharp objects from knives to machetes to axes. The only thing that women, the middle aged, the elderly, the police, the 99%, can use that stops the 1% the bad 20-something-year-old man, the lunatic the criminal, is a gun. Frequently the 1% stops himself and that's a good thing, but most of the rest of the time what stops him is someone shows up with a gun. All other weapons increase the likelihood of being injured or killed. Counter-attacking in unarmed groups mitigates that risk a bit, but it's still a very courageous (risky) thing to do.
    You have a right to life. The right to bear arms is, and has been established by great legal scholars such as Sir William Blackstone, to be an auxiliary right to the right to life. It is also a natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found to be insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression. The USA entrenched the rights of men into a constitution, and created strict separation of powers (congress, administration/president, judiciary) to make it very hard for the government to use might to crush those rights. England put these rights into a statute making them vulnerable, and then revoked the statute via the supremacy of Parliament, and then hired police sworn to enforce the Law, might crushes right.


    The only thing that happens if you have a gun, is the bad guy takes it away from you and shoots you with it.

    The 'mob' (voters), most of whom hadn't been attacked that decade, acted selfishly, ignored their duty to protect their neighbours who had a need, and instead judged that they were more afraid of the gun, and voted accordingly.
    UK: 126,326 police in 151,149 km2 : 0.836 police per km2
    Canada: 70,000 police in 9.985 million km2 : 0.007 police per km2
    Canada is very different than England


    Canadian cites are just like the UK for police density, therefore no guns in cities.
    For now, guns in Canadian rural areas are ok, because of slower police response times.
    Last edited by RangeBob; 08-11-2019 at 06:36 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    40,950
    Under Sharia law, citizens have a right to bear arms. Citizens not practicing Islam are prohibited from bearing arms and are required to be protected by the military.
    -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_...rms#Sharia_law

    After WWI, the Treaty of Versailles (1919) required German citizens to be disarmed.
    The Weimar Republic (Germany 1919 to 1933) discovered that without a registry they couldn't comply with the treaty, so they implemented a system of registration, ironically with a promise of no confiscation to increase compliance.
    The Nazis took over Germany, and reduced gun control to give Nazis the right to bear arms. Declared that Jews and others were not citizens and are required to be protected by the military.
    1968 US Congress had a democratic majority in the Senate and the House, and a democratic president (Lyndon B. Johnson). They didn't seek out the Weimar Republic's law, instead they asked for the Nazi Gun Control law, translated it, and used that to create the Gun Control Act of 1968.
    Last edited by RangeBob; 08-11-2019 at 11:37 AM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member LB303's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    not far enough
    Posts
    4,929
    Quote Originally Posted by RangeBob View Post
    Under Sharia law, citizens have a right to bear arms. Citizens not practicing Islam are prohibited from bearing arms and are required to be protected by the military.
    -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_...rms#Sharia_law

    After WWI, the Treaty of Versailles (1919) required German citizens to be disarmed.
    The Weimar Republic (Germany 1919 to 1933) discovered that without a registry they couldn't comply with the treaty, so they implemented a system of registration, ironically with a promise of no confiscation to increase compliance.
    The Nazis took over Germany, and reduced gun control to give Nazis the right to bear arms. Declared that Jews and others were not citizens and are required to be protected by the military.
    1968 US Congress had a democratic majority in the Senate and the House, and a democratic president (Humbert Humphry). They didn't seek out the Weimar Republic's law, instead they asked for the Nazi Gun Control law, translated it, and used that to create the Gun Control Act of 1968.
    You're just seeing who's paying attention, RB?
    Everyone knows Barry Goldwater was President then

  4. The Following User Liked This Post By LB303

    Rory McCanuck (08-11-2019)

  5. #4
    Senior Member RangeBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    40,950
    Quote Originally Posted by LB303 View Post
    You're just seeing who's paying attention, RB?
    Vice president with typos, but still a democrat ! (Hubert Humphrey)
    President would have been Lyndon B. Johnson.

  6. #5
    Senior Member FALover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    moved close to the lake.Some call it Gilford.
    Posts
    9,662
    Canadian cites are just like the UK for police density, therefore no guns in cities.
    For now, guns in Canadian rural areas are ok, because of slower police response times.


    In the cities, police times may be quicker , but after being assaulted/killed/raped/robbed, it does not matter how fast they get to you the crime has already been committed. The only difference is they might catch the perpetrator faster. You could also point to 'progressive' cities that allow violence to occur and the cops stand off and do nothing. Antifa mobs come to mind. Point your search engines towards Portland, Seattle or other cities. mob violence happens and those responsible for it get away with no police interference. The police are not here to protect us, that is our responsibility. We are not allowed to catch and punish criminals, that responsibility is for the police and courts.
    Allow us the tools and the legal means to protect ourselves and the police and courts will have a reduced workload.
    cookin' up a batch of fun (and pasta)

    Can I Hear A Ramen!!!

  7. #6
    Senior Member 3MTA3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    45.635887,-78.367367
    Posts
    3,190
    Guns don't murder people, people murder people. People kill many things, Guns kill many things.
    "So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot.." - George Orwell
    "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."-William Pitt the younger
    FTrudeau

  8. #7
    Canadian ForcesMember srdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Deadmonton
    Posts
    621
    Quote Originally Posted by 3MTA3 View Post
    People kill many things, Guns kill many things.
    A gun has very seldom killed anything unless it was physically used to beat something/someone to death, it is in fact the bullet that is the mechanism that kills... unlike automobiles.

  9. #8
    Senior Member CLW .45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    2,992
    Guns are tools.

    Too many firearms owners also seem to be tools.

    Strange, when everyone has a right to the former tools, that some of the latter tools are unable to wrap what passes for a mind around the concept of individual rights.
    To show that men can travel to the moon and return, use the American experience.

    To show that public safety isn’t hurt by responsible individuals carrying to protect life, use the American experience.

  10. #9
    Senior Member snoopycda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by CLW .45 View Post
    Guns are tools.

    Too many firearms owners also seem to be tools.

    Strange, when everyone has a right to the former tools, that some of the latter tools are unable to wrap what passes for a mind around the concept of individual rights.
    Too true, a gun is a tool that was originally designed to throw rocks farther. The reasons for throwing rocks varied.

  11. #10
    Canadian ForcesMember srdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Deadmonton
    Posts
    621
    both pointy sticks and firearms are tools - just one has evolved more than the other

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •