Happiness is a Warm Gun: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » Happiness is a Warm Gun » Happiness is a Warm Gun

Happiness is a Warm Gun

Page: 1 2 3

Happiness is a Warm Gun

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2259

Posted 05/06/08 - 02:54 PM:	#51
The way I see it there are two ways of resolving any conflict: 1) Talk 2) Guns See, I want to resolve the conflict through option 1, but those who push gun control or want to ban guns have skipped 1 and gone to option 2. The only reason they talk is to convince people to go for option 2.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/06/08 - 03:58 PM:	#52
"Why the gun is civilization" Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. ...When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act. http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-...
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1665

Posted 05/07/08 - 03:23 AM:	#53
cortes wrote: Hmmm. I poinit you to a book that refutes your claim and you dismiss the book in favor of your prejudices. Nice. Actually, though, English crime was at its lowest when it had no gun control. The book proves that gun control does not lower violent crime. This is supported by more research (although some maintain that his work was performed incorrectly), but violent crime resulting in death of either party (aggressor or defendant) rises because of it. That was what I meant to say. (I suppose the reference to "crime rates" related to London messed it up, those rates remain the same but deaths due to violent crime has dropped). As the book also shows you cannot make such a direct inference from the absence of gun control and the level of crime (as far as I can tell from the summaries and reviews) since many other factors influence it. The book does show that gun ownership or control does not influence violent crime rates. I also wonder whether the book deals with accidental shootings, shootings in self-defence of property (e.g. the situation is not classified as a violent crime) and shooting in self-defence in case of an intended violent crime (someone intends to shoot you but you shoot him first, for instance). I presume shooting a person in self-defence is not classified as a crime and therefore not entered into the statistics of violent crimes. The research I have laid my eyes on in law school at around 2000 as part of the criminology studies, showed a correlation between gun control and deaths caused by guns. The latter dropping significantly in case of gun control. My prejudice is with the idea of having something that makes it easier to kill someone. I don't want to kill anyone, even when he's robbing me and I believe that to be justified because the two acts are not proportional to each other. Now, if someone would want to murder me I would probably appreciate having a gun at hand but the likelihood of that happening in the Netherlands is so small that I prefer to not have such a dangerous item in my house. Obviously, in Darfur and Iraq... I would be packing a gun. Edited by Benkei on 05/07/08 - 03:31 AM
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1665

Posted 05/07/08 - 03:27 AM:	#54
keda wrote: I don't see what problem you have with what I wrote. It seems like correct English to me. Why don't you reply to any of what I said, and why don't you explain what you don't think is correct English? Nothing you wrote but your misinterpretation and misunderstanding of what I wrote. I didn't feel like correcting you anymore and I didn't think we were talking about the same thing anymore. Edited by Benkei on 05/07/08 - 03:48 AM
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2259

Posted 05/07/08 - 03:51 AM:	#55
Benkei wrote: keda wrote: I don't see what problem you have with what I wrote. It seems like correct English to me. Why don't you reply to any of what I said, and why don't you explain what you don't think is correct English? Nothing you wrote but your misinterpretation and misunderstanding of what I wrote. I didn't feel like correcting you anymore. Well you know, I'm in the same situation as the Japanese when they got bombed because of a misunderstanding, except that you know it is a misunderstanding. I tell you again that I want this to end peacefully, but you apparently don't, unless you want to explain to me what I misunderstood.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1665

Posted 05/07/08 - 05:04 AM:	#56
It ended peacefully. Why does an inconclusive argument not end peacefully? I still don't want to explain what you misunderstood because it is irrelevant to the thread but I will raise one point and I'll kindly request not to pursue the subject further as it does not relate to the thread anymore and I'm also not interested in explaining myself further. Suffice is to say that you consider carrying a gun a positive thing and would impose a duty on me to shoot burglars to save other people from being robbed. I'm also a criminal for refusing to do so and you seem to be under the wrongful impression that I like to be robbed (I just like not shooting robbers, ok?). I used a rhetorical question to prod you to rethink that position, which you didn't and then accused me of using rhetorics. Although rhetorical questions can have rhetorical effects it was in this case intended to encourage the reader (you and others) to reflect on what the implied answer to the question must be. I could go on explaining why the answer to the rhetorical question should be what I implied it to be but find it preferable if people think for themselves.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2259

Posted 05/07/08 - 06:06 AM:	#57
Benkei wrote: Suffice is to say that you consider carrying a gun a positive thing and would impose a duty on me to shoot burglars to save other people from being robbed. I'm also a criminal for refusing to do so and you seem to be under the wrongful impression that I like to be robbed (I just like not shooting robbers, ok?). Of course not. This is a misrepresentation of my position. I guess it is because of this misunderstanding that you appeared to have flipped out from point of view. To clarify: 1. I do not consider carrying a gun positive thing, except if there is a threat of any sort that would require guns to diminish, such as threat of robbers. 2. I would not imposing a duty on you to shoot burglars, in order to save other people from getting robbed. I was not objecting to your not shooting burglars, but to your giving your property to the thief. 3. The reason you would be a criminal is not because you didn't shoot the criminal but because of aiding him. You don't have to shoot criminals, you can call the police or anything, but you are just giving it away to him. I used a rhetorical question to prod you to rethink that position, which you didn't and then accused me of using rhetorics. Although rhetorical questions can have rhetorical effects it was in this case intended to encourage the reader (you and others) to reflect on what the implied answer to the question must be. Given that you misunderstood me for holding such a position, it sure appeared like mere rhetorics. A rhetoric question is called rhetoric, not just because it doesn't expect an answer, but because it is intended to produce a rhetorical effect of invoking reflection of an implied answer to the question. I don't dismiss rhetorics in general, just when its mere rhetoric. All in all, I think we both agree on the answer to that question, but why I considered it mere rhetoric was, because there is another rhetorical effect, I guess not intended, namely that I did not agree with it to begin with.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1665

Posted 05/07/08 - 06:14 AM:	#58
3. The reason you would be a criminal is not because you didn't shoot the criminal but because of aiding him. You don't have to shoot criminals, you can call the police or anything, but you are just giving it away to him. I failed to see why this would follow from my refusal to shoot him. When you assumed I'd be giving it away I lost you completely. As I said, I still don't like being robbed so I would do things to avoid it; like locking my doors and windows properly (I live on the ground floor in an appartment) and installing a burglar alarm. I would also call the police although Dutch police sucks so it wouldn't make any difference.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2259

Posted 05/07/08 - 06:20 AM:	#59
Benkei wrote: I failed to see why this would follow from my refusal to shoot him. When you assumed I'd be giving it away I lost you completely. As I said, I still don't like being robbed so I would do things to avoid it; like locking my doors and windows properly (I live on the ground floor in an appartment) and installing a burglar alarm. I would also call the police although Dutch police sucks so it wouldn't make any difference. Well you explicitely said you would give it away, and even added you are not that selfish. Now given that the Dutch police does such a bad job, why not allow people to take the matter into their own hands?
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1665

Posted 05/07/08 - 07:00 AM:	#60
I would sooner give my stuff away than shoot a person, yes, but I prefer to do neither. And why I would not allow people to take matters into their own hands? Because I don't think death is an appropriate penalty for thieving, I don't like to be in a situation where people who wish me harm might have a gun, I also don't think that thieving in all instances is wrong which would make shooting a person even worse and because Dutch society as a whole has decided to put the monopoly on force most firmly in the hands of the government. In the Netherlands chances of getting shot as a civilian are very slim, you have a better chance of being hit by lightning, because they are almost all related to assassinations between criminals. Now, as long as the system of checks-and-balances works properly and the limitations we intended for the use of force by police and military are respected and when transgressed punished, I see no reason to deviate. Once the fabric of society starts to unravel where abuse of police and military, e.g. the government in general, becomes common I would consider it justified for every citizen to be armed - just in case. But in the day-to-day dealings between citizens I find the presence of weapons entirely unnecessary. Until that time I prefer to have the least amount of people walking around with guns, simply because there are too many nutjobs out there. Guns, in my opinion, become necessary only in lawless areas where there are no regulations enforcing "social" behaviour.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2259

Posted 05/07/08 - 07:51 AM:	#61
Of course death is not an appropperiate penalty for theft, but I don't see why shooting someone for trying to steal my stuff is to constitute a penalty in the first place. I'm just trying to defend myself and my stuff. If there was proper enforcement of property rights, I would never have to carry a gun, except as self defense if someone tried to murder me. Given proper enforcement of my right to not to be murdered, I would not need to carry a gun at all. But if these conditions are not met, carrying a gun would be a good idea, and since they are not met, we are to an extent still in the state of nature, where self defense and defense of my property does not constitute murder.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2259

Posted 05/07/08 - 07:57 AM:	#62
Benkei wrote: Once the fabric of society starts to unravel where abuse of police and military, e.g. the government in general, becomes common I would consider it justified for every citizen to be armed - just in case. And how is that suppose to be done when guns are banned? History is filled with examples where disarmament of the population was done precisely for the sake of a tyrannic government. I think for this reason we should at all times be allowed to carry guns.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1665

Posted 05/07/08 - 08:48 AM:	#63
Of course death is not an appropperiate penalty for theft, but I don't see why shooting someone for trying to steal my stuff is to constitute a penalty in the first place. I'm just trying to defend myself and my stuff. If there was proper enforcement of property rights, I would never have to carry a gun, except as self defense if someone tried to murder me. Given proper enforcement of my right to not to be murdered, I would not need to carry a gun at all. But if these conditions are not met, carrying a gun would be a good idea, and since they are not met, we are to an extent still in the state of nature, where self defense and defense of my property does not constitute murder. If he would be caught he would be tried in court. The fact that you shoot him in self-defence is because you believe your reaction is justified in relation to his action. Such consideration is too me not (sufficiently) different from a court that believes it is justified to incarcerate him as reaction to his action. What is different is the level of abstraction, you protect your personal property the court protects the interests of society as a whole. In any case, maybe you should let go of the idea that perfect security is possible. Even when you have a gun I could still strangle you, stab you, shoot you quickly enough before you have any chance to react. If someone really wants to hurt you they will, there's not much you can do about it. And how is that suppose to be done when guns are banned? History is filled with examples where disarmament of the population was done precisely for the sake of a tyrannic government. I think for this reason we should at all times be allowed to carry guns. The Palestinians, Iraqis and Pakistanis don't have any problem getting them. Nor do convicted felons in the US. I'd probably be able to get a handgun in the Netherlands if I really wanted to even if it is not allowed. You can always get a gun when it is necessary. It's strange that you feel the insecurity that you think a gun is necessary to protect yourself and your property. The possibility simply does not cross my mind in everyday life. Burglary does, someone stealing my bike does but I lock things. Simply the idea of having to be afraid of a form of violence in my area is strange to me (which does not mean that the idea of violence is alien to me, just that it will happen where I live). I'm certain Finland is as safe if not safer than the Netherlands.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

cortes
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 972

Posted 05/07/08 - 08:56 AM:	#64
Benkei wrote: The book proves that gun control does not lower violent crime. This is supported by more research (although some maintain that his work was performed incorrectly), but violent crime resulting in death of either party (aggressor or defendant) rises because of it. That was what I meant to say. (I suppose the reference to "crime rates" related to London messed it up, those rates remain the same but deaths due to violent crime has dropped). The research refutes that as well. The same author has done comparative studies across countries. No society has every reduced crime through gun control. The best arguments for gun control rely on correlational studies that compare societies where guns are common and where they are restricted. But the research also calls that correlation into question because,within the US, states that have liberalized gun control have seen a reduction in crime rates, including murder, beyond other factors under study. (I still remember when Florida first liberalized its laws and "the experts" were all certain that blood would flow in the streets. But instead Florida becaome a model for other states so that now a majority of Americans live where concealed carry permits are relatively easy to obtain. And this summer we will hear whether or not the Supreme Court will uphold the lower court's ruling invalidating Washington DCs gun control laws, among the strictest in the nation. Benkei wrote: As the book also shows you cannot make such a direct inference from the absence of gun control and the level of crime (as far as I can tell from the summaries and reviews) since many other factors influence it. The book does show that gun ownership or control does not influence violent crime rates. Let's agree that the record is mixed and the research not as conclusive as we would prefer. The record on gun control is sullied by the rise in crime rates over the last century. (Yes, even in "peaceful" Europe, England's crime nadir was around 1900.) Where then is the rationale for denying oneself the pleasure of gun ownership? Benkei wrote: I also wonder whether the book deals with accidental shootings, shootings in self-defence of property (e.g. the situation is not classified as a violent crime) and shooting in self-defence in case of an intended violent crime (someone intends to shoot you but you shoot him first, for instance). I presume shooting a person in self-defence is not classified as a crime and therefore not entered into the statistics of violent crimes. The research I have laid my eyes on in law school at around 2000 as part of the criminology studies, showed a correlation between gun control and deaths caused by guns. The latter dropping significantly in case of gun control. I belive it does but accidental deaths have been dropping rapidly mostly due to simple education and the affordability of gun safes. In the old days, it was common to keep firearms in a drawer or closet. My grandfather kept a loaded handgun in the drawer beside his bed. My father kept his guns in display cases that, while locked, could be broken by a child. Today you can purchase a quick-opening mini-vault that is almost as convenient as a drawer but entirely secure against curious children and even most thieves. Benkei wrote: My prejudice is with the idea of having something that makes it easier to kill someone. I don't want to kill anyone, even when he's robbing me and I believe that to be justified because the two acts are not proportional to each other. This is actually the most imporant finding in the resarch in the book: most uses of a gun to prevent crime involve "brandishing" the weapon: the weapon is displayed and the burglar runs away (and no report is made to the police about the incident). If a burglar is there to steal he will leave when he finds out that you are there and that you are armed. If he does not leave then it is safe to assume (as the law does) that he has violent intentions. It is interesting to note that one of the areas where the law has been liberalized lately is with car-jackings. It used to be that cars were treated as property, the owner was expected to give it up rather than use deadly force. But most states have changed the law to treat the car more like a home, a secure place that you can defend with deadly force. Benkei wrote: Now, if someone would want to murder me I would probably appreciate having a gun at hand but the likelihood of that happening in the Netherlands is so small that I prefer to not have such a dangerous item in my house. Obviously, in Darfur and Iraq... I would be packing a gun. Well, that's certainly a more reasonable attitude. In my case, I have sufficiently reduced the risks of gun ownership by using locked safes that I worry more about my swimming pool or just backing my car out of the garage than my guns.
_____________________ Copyright (c) 2008 Hernan Cortes, Sociedad de los Conquistadores. cortes@conquistador.org http://www.conquistador.org

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2259

Posted 05/07/08 - 09:22 AM:	#65
Benkei wrote: If he would be caught he would be tried in court. The fact that you shoot him in self-defence is because you believe your reaction is justified in relation to his action. Such consideration is too me not (sufficiently) different from a court that believes it is justified to incarcerate him as reaction to his action. What is different is the level of abstraction, you protect your personal property the court protects the interests of society as a whole. It is to me different, because me and him are in this case in the state of nature where there is no court and thus no justice or injustice in our actions. A court is not justified to do it because of a contract in which shooting someone could constitute murder, but I made no contract with him, in which shooting him would constitute murder. In any case, maybe you should let go of the idea that perfect security is possible. Even when you have a gun I could still strangle you, stab you, shoot you quickly enough before you have any chance to react. If someone really wants to hurt you they will, there's not much you can do about it. I don't see that as a reason as giving up the idea. If I manage to establish a lasting friendship with you, I would be much more secure than carrying a gun worrying about you trying to kill me. The Palestinians, Iraqis and Pakistanis don't have any problem getting them. Nor do convicted felons in the US. I'd probably be able to get a handgun in the Netherlands if I really wanted to even if it is not allowed. You can always get a gun when it is necessary. That's the problem. Gun bans doesn't stop criminals from getting guns, it only allows the government to bully the population. It's strange that you feel the insecurity that you think a gun is necessary to protect yourself and your property. I don't feel insecure as it is, not for some random burglar where I live, but I can feel the calm before the storm. Once the society starts to unravel, criminality will scyrocket and we will all be subject to complete slavery or thrown in prison or executed. It is a danger that cannot be eliminted until military and police has been abolished completely. I'm certain Finland is as safe if not safer than the Netherlands. At the moment yes, but perhaps in a few years we may both look back at these days and wish we would have done something. Both our governments are about to sell us off.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.