Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?
- Agent Smyth
- Posts: 71
- Joined: March 21st, 2023, 6:43 am
Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8271
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?
Agreed, but it isn't exclusively a killing-tool. And the reasoning by which we come to that conclusion is clear, and not disingenuous, as excuses for owning killing-tools so often are.
Yes and no. Yes, it is strictly equal, but your text (see below) clearly implies that both police and citizens will have access to killing-tools, and that their access will be equal. It mentions "general conditions" such as training and checks that do not apply when there is no access to killing-tools.
I prefer my meanings to be clear and explicit, and my preference is for no-one to own killing-tools. Option #1 does not explain this at all clearly, so I referred to a missing, fourth, option.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8271
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?
Yes, and yet, in the USA, at least, hunting is no longer necessary. It is little more than an affectation. I do not consider this to be a valid justification for owning a killing-tool.mrlefty0706 wrote: ↑March 21st, 2023, 11:57 pm Single shot rifles can be used for hunting and will give the game a fighting chance to survive.
"Who cares, wins"
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?
Thank you for your reply!
Scott wrote: ↑March 21st, 2023, 12:36 pm My 11-year-old daughter's huge super sharp kitchen knife is presumably also a weapon and a killing tool.
Neither this topic nor the titular question are about "killing tools", let alone specially about "things that are exclusively a killing tool".Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2023, 10:10 am Agreed, but it isn't exclusively a killing-tool. And the reasoning by which we come to that conclusion is clear, and not disingenuous, as excuses for owning killing-tools so often are.
Making the issue about "tools that are exclusively killing tools" would be an utter strawman.
I believe the perceived implication is a mis-perception. I prefer to focus on the explicit not the implicit. I am reminded of this post of yours about saying what we mean, about assuming others say what they mean, about not reading between the lines, and about not expecting others to read between the lines.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2023, 10:10 am Yes and no. Yes, it is strictly equal, but your text (see below) clearly implies that both police and citizens will have access to [guns], and that their access will be equal.
[Emphasis added.]
No access for group A + No access for group B = Equal access for group A and group b.
In short:
No access = the same access.
Consider that the three options are explicitly describes as the following: (1) cops disarmed, citizens armed; (2) cops armed; citizens disarmed; and (3) equality.
Clearly, (3) includes both "cops armed, citizens armed" and "cops disarmed, citizens disarmed", or in other words the equality option clearly includes both the "cops and citizens equally disarmed" answer.
I don't want to and won't add a fourth option if I re-launch the poll in a new topic, but I am open to the idea of slightly rephrasing the equality option to be clear as to avoid others seeing that false implication that it does not include the cops and citizens both equally and fully disarmed of all guns.
If I re-released a new version of the poll with the 'equality' option changed to be worded as follows, do you think that would more clear such that you could more comfortably vote:
Equality: I want citizens to have the same access (or same lack thereof) to guns as cops under the same general conditions (or same lack thereof) for each (e.g. similar safety training, background checks, minimum age requirements, etc.)
?
I disagree. I think the "equality" option clearly covers the situation in which you don't want any cops or citizens at all to have any guns of any kind no matter what, regardless of their training or ability to pass a background check or such.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2023, 10:10 am I prefer my meanings to be clear and explicit, and my preference is for no-one to own [guns]. Option #1 does not explain this at all clearly, so I referred to a missing, fourth, option.
For one who does not want cops or citizens to have any guns at all of any kind, not even guns such as BB guns or bean bag guns, then indeed that qualification does not apply.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2023, 10:10 am It mentions "general conditions" such as training and checks that do not apply when there is no access to [guns].
Likewise, if someone wants both all citizens (and all cops) to have unconditional access to all guns of any kind without any restrictions or required training or licensing or such, including rocket launchers and such, then that qualification also wouldn't apply to their answer.
Zero = zero, so in both cases the answer is equality, whether the zero refers to the lack of any guns at all even BB guns or paint ball guns, or whether zero refers to a lack of any restrictions, background checks, or required training at all of any kind.
Incidentally, I've been shot in close range by a BB gun before. It didn't even break my skin. I didn't even bleed. Granted, I would advise one (especially parents and their young kids) to be extremely careful with both BB guns and huge super sharp kitchen knives, especially when letting young kids use them.
Granted, axes and axe throwing are probably more dangerous than BB guns or large kitchen knives. So here is a video of me throwing an axe.
If desired, I also have a video of me bowling and a video of me shooting two pistols back to back and a video of me skeet shooting with a shotgun. Why one would want to send violent taxpayer-funded feds across an entire country to violently stop a peace-loving man like me from doing any of those things is beyond my understanding, but if such a person wants those feds to have axes, or pistols, or kitchen knives, or bowling bowls when equally trained and qualified citizens cannot then that person would not choose the equality option.
But, thankfully, Pattern-chaser, it seems you and I both agree in that we both answer 'equality'. While we may not agree on what we want banned or not, we agree that we would want the bans applied equally to cops and citizens.
Hopefully, we also say the same thing about things like the legality of motorcycles. Even if you support a nationwide or global ban on motorcycles or taxpayer-funded war on motorcycles to match the war on drugs like marijuana, hopefully you want those violent bans applies equally to cops and citizens. Incidentally, here's a picture of my young daughter sitting on my motorcycle.
In my book, Justice (the only fiction book I've written), I give a fun example of a motorcycle cop giving a ticket to a caged driver for the caged driver not wearing a seatbelt.
Thank you,
Scott
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8271
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?
Er, no. You seem to think that police, army, citizens, and everybody should have some — equal — access to killing-tools. I think that no-one should have access to such things. We disagree. Profoundly.
...and I keep calling them "killing-tools" because (a) that's what they are; that is their purpose for existing, and (b) all of these arguments apply as much to knives, or missiles, as they do to guns, so it seems helpful and useful to refer to them all in one go.
"Who cares, wins"
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?
Thank you for your reply!
I don't think that. Namely, there are no 'shoulds' in my philosophy at all. For more on that, please see these other topics of mine:Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2023, 10:02 am You seem to think that police, army, citizens, and everybody should have some — equal — access to [guns].
[Emphasis added.]
- There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'.
- What the word "evil" means to me, and why I believe evil (as I use the term) does not exist.
- An elaboration on how judgemental moralizing and the superstition of 'moral law' infringes on free-spirited inner peace
However, for most complete, convincing, and concise argument and explanation, you will want to read my book, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All. I spent over 5 years working on the book, and worked with many professional editors, beta readers, and proofreaders to ensure it was as concise, clear, and accurate as possible. It would take 20 years of full-time one-on-one conversation with a single person to give that one person what they can get in a single day simply by reading the book.
There's a huge significant difference between one thing being a second thing versus being a type of or subset of a second thing.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2023, 10:02 am ...and I keep calling them "killing-tools" because (a) that's what they are;
One might think that abortion or male masturbation is a type of murder, but to treat the words as synonymn in a discussion about abortion or male masturbation (or even murder) would presumably be both off-topic and an utter clear-cut strawman.
The word "guns" and "killing tools" are not synonyms.
It gets even more absurd of a strawman if instead of talking about merely "killing tools" one starts talking about "human-killing tools that are exclusively killing tools used exclusively for killing humans" or such. That would be like a strawman of one's own strawman.
It might seem helpful for you to talk about a completely different topic than what the topic is actually about, but it would still be off-topic, and just as much a strawman.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2023, 10:02 am all of these arguments apply as much to knives, or missiles, as they do to guns, so it seems helpful and useful to refer to them all in one go.
You might think it's helpful to allegedly kill two birds with one stone by defeating a strawman, but it's still an off-topic strawman, and you run the risk of actually only killing the strawman by throwing stones at him at all.
In contrast, you are of course free to start your own new topic where you can talk about either (1) killing tools that are not exclusively tools, and/or (2) killing tools that are exclusively only killing tools.
A fundamental fallacy of many strawman arguments is the fallacious arguer acting on the (previously) unstated and un-agreed premise that the same argument applies equally to two different things (e.g. the actual topic vs the other thing). As an example, imagine a debate or discussion about whether abortion is murder; one person might keep providing arguments or evidence or commentary about how male masturbation is is not murder' and then when accused of being off-topic and/or doing a strawman, the person may say, "my arguments about male masturbation not being murder apply equally to male masturbation and abortion so it seems helpful and useful to refer to them all in one go".
The same would go for the vice versa: If one was talking about male masturbation, then one could create strawman by instead arguing about abortion and giving arguments that apply to abortion.
This is discussion is NOT about (1) "killing tools that are exclusively killing tools" (whatever that means), (2) "killing tools that are not exclusively killing tools" (whatever that means). This topic is about (3) guns, and to a lesser degree weaponry in general.
If you want to make a new topic arguing that 'all guns are exclusively killing tools' or arguing that 'all guns are killing tools but not all guns are exclusively killing tools' feel free. If you want to make a new topic about your seeming desire to ban all killing tools including my 11-year-old daughter's kitchen knife, feel free. This topic is not about that. This topic is not about whether or not we want to ban all killing tools including my my 11-year-old daughter's kitchen knife. Instead, this topic is about a simple mostly mathematical poll question involving guns that I will focus the rest of my post on here:
In that case, please tell me which of the following three exhaustive and mutually exclusive options is true for you for the below clarified version of the question?
Who do you want to have more access to guns--cops or equally trained and qualified citizens?
#1 -- Equality (i.e. cops and citizens equally armed/disarmed): I don't want either to have more access than the other, meaning the amount of access (or lack thereof) I want them each to have is the same.
#2 -- Cops more armed than citizens.
#3 -- Citizens more armed than cops.
Please note, due to the way the math works, the above options are both exhaustive and mutually exclusive.
Thank you,
Scott
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?
All I am saying is the existence of a sheriff is necessary and that the quality of the new sheriff is what may or may not make the new sheriff sufficient for keeping the peace in the town and surrounding area.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8271
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2023, 10:02 am all of these arguments apply as much to knives, or missiles, as they do to guns, so it seems helpful and useful to refer to them all in one go.
The topic title refers to "guns and weaponry", not just to guns. I tried to do that too.
"Who cares, wins"
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?
You're leaving out the main use of firearms, ie the sport of target shooting. It's more popular than hunting by a little and by killing people by a lot.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2023, 10:20 amYes, and yet, in the USA, at least, hunting is no longer necessary. It is little more than an affectation. I do not consider this to be a valid justification for owning a killing-tool.mrlefty0706 wrote: ↑March 21st, 2023, 11:57 pm Single shot rifles can be used for hunting and will give the game a fighting chance to survive.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?
Target shooting is controlled for public safety. If it were shown that target shooting was dangerous a sane legislature would ban it.LuckyR wrote: ↑March 24th, 2023, 6:08 pmYou're leaving out the main use of firearms, ie the sport of target shooting. It's more popular than hunting by a little and by killing people by a lot.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2023, 10:20 amYes, and yet, in the USA, at least, hunting is no longer necessary. It is little more than an affectation. I do not consider this to be a valid justification for owning a killing-tool.mrlefty0706 wrote: ↑March 21st, 2023, 11:57 pm Single shot rifles can be used for hunting and will give the game a fighting chance to survive.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?
My guess is that target shooting is less dangerous than bathtubs.Belindi wrote: ↑March 25th, 2023, 6:34 amTarget shooting is controlled for public safety. If it were shown that target shooting was dangerous a sane legislature would ban it.LuckyR wrote: ↑March 24th, 2023, 6:08 pmYou're leaving out the main use of firearms, ie the sport of target shooting. It's more popular than hunting by a little and by killing people by a lot.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2023, 10:20 amYes, and yet, in the USA, at least, hunting is no longer necessary. It is little more than an affectation. I do not consider this to be a valid justification for owning a killing-tool.mrlefty0706 wrote: ↑March 21st, 2023, 11:57 pm Single shot rifles can be used for hunting and will give the game a fighting chance to survive.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?
It's true there are murders in bathtubs but bathtubs aren't usually used as portable weapons.LuckyR wrote: ↑March 25th, 2023, 1:51 pmMy guess is that target shooting is less dangerous than bathtubs.Belindi wrote: ↑March 25th, 2023, 6:34 amTarget shooting is controlled for public safety. If it were shown that target shooting was dangerous a sane legislature would ban it.LuckyR wrote: ↑March 24th, 2023, 6:08 pmYou're leaving out the main use of firearms, ie the sport of target shooting. It's more popular than hunting by a little and by killing people by a lot.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 22nd, 2023, 10:20 am
Yes, and yet, in the USA, at least, hunting is no longer necessary. It is little more than an affectation. I do not consider this to be a valid justification for owning a killing-tool.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?
Perhaps you didn't understand my comment. Target shooting might be dangerous (just like bathtubs), but target shooting is potentially dangerous through accidents, not murder. Identical to bathtubs.Belindi wrote: ↑March 25th, 2023, 5:09 pmIt's true there are murders in bathtubs but bathtubs aren't usually used as portable weapons.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?
I believe I understand your comment now.LuckyR wrote: ↑March 25th, 2023, 6:57 pmPerhaps you didn't understand my comment. Target shooting might be dangerous (just like bathtubs), but target shooting is potentially dangerous through accidents, not murder. Identical to bathtubs.
It's definitive of weapons that they are use to destroy life and wellbeing. It's definitive of bathtubs that they are intended for total immersing in water.
Although it may be claimed that target shooters (gunners) don't intend to injure people or animals I suspect many target shooters intend by the activity to get better at being potential killers in defence of their property. E.g. apart from technology the difference between longbows and crossbows is the longbow has less potential to kill and injure than the crossbow. This because technologies are designed for specific purposes. For this reason the person who chooses to entertain herself as a skilled longbowman is more peaceful than one who chooses to be skilled with crossbows or guns.
Gun usage and crossbow usage is similar to the usage of dog breeds. Some dog breeds are intended as weapons and it's plain to see that nobody has to buy an American bulldog when they could just as easily buy a Labrador retriever.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?
You go into some detail to parse the difference between long bows and crossbows, yet lump all firearms together. I would venture a likely correct guess that the number of murders committed with dedicated target pistols and rifles, trap shooting guns etc is lower than knives.Belindi wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 5:48 amI believe I understand your comment now.
It's definitive of weapons that they are use to destroy life and wellbeing. It's definitive of bathtubs that they are intended for total immersing in water.
Although it may be claimed that target shooters (gunners) don't intend to injure people or animals I suspect many target shooters intend by the activity to get better at being potential killers in defence of their property. E.g. apart from technology the difference between longbows and crossbows is the longbow has less potential to kill and injure than the crossbow. This because technologies are designed for specific purposes. For this reason the person who chooses to entertain herself as a skilled longbowman is more peaceful than one who chooses to be skilled with crossbows or guns.
Gun usage and crossbow usage is similar to the usage of dog breeds. Some dog breeds are intended as weapons and it's plain to see that nobody has to buy an American bulldog when they could just as easily buy a Labrador retriever.
As to dog breeds, chihuahuas and cocker spaniels are two of the top three most likely to bite.
Long story short, it's not about the gun, it's about the shooter. Switzerland allows the ownership of fully automatic assault rifle type guns (with permit and background check), gun ownership is incredibly high, as are suicide by gun rates (in men), yet their homicide rate is very low. Why? Not because of gun availability, it's because Switzerland is full of... Swiss people. They aren't bombarded with fear mongering messaging, so they don't run around scared all day. They don't need to "defend themselves" against evil doers (code for poor, Black people).
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023