Who do you want to have access to significantly more powerful guns and weaponry: cops or citizens?

[Sculptor1]

I am a 5'3 115lb woman. So, no I don't feel like a man because I have never been nor will I ever be a man. I carry one because it makes me secure and capable of eliminating a threat if necessary. I am a veteran and very certain I know how to properly use my weapons appropriately. I do stay inside during storms. Your comparison of a gun is similar to whether a person wears the proper PPE when doing a job. If I don't and something happens to me, it was because I made the choice not to. However, if I was to be mugged on the street and didn't have a gun, is that the same? I don't think so.

Your gun ownership is more likely to hasten your own death by gunfire.
Think that over.

[ernestm]

Well frankly it seems to me the entire argument is misdirected. As to what people 'want,' there is what we 'can do' and what we 'should do.' What we can do is defined by rights in law, and is mistaken for what we should do. What we should do is [...]

I disagree. For reference, I am the OP (Original Poster).

This topic is explicitly and intentionally not about what "should" be done or "ought" to be done, whatever such things mean.

Thus, any mentions or arguments about 'shoulds' or 'oughts' are misdirected/off-topic.

The Original Post contains some very specific points and asks some clear understandable specific questions, none of which have anything to do with 'shoulds' or 'oughts'.

That is, of course, because I don't believe in 'shoulds' and 'oughts'. More on that can be found in my following topics:


- There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'.

- Do you agree there is no problem of evil?

- The Clarity of Amorality

- How Unassertiveness Leads to Aggression and the Illusion of 'Shoulds' and 'Oughts'

- Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man: My Philosophy of Non-Violence, Self-Government, Self-Discipline, and Spiritual Freedom

Well, that's like asking if I want to die. What I want, alone and by itself, has absolutely bearing whatsoever on what reality is or how it can change. The answers are at the level of responses to a child saying it doesn't want to eat dinner. So I don't think it's particularly useful to consider philosophically. Have a nice day.

[mrlefty0706]

We do agree. I want citizens and police to have access to the same guns and no automatic weapons.

[Scott]

Well frankly it seems to me the entire argument is misdirected. As to what people 'want,' there is what we 'can do' and what we 'should do.' What we can do is defined by rights in law, and is mistaken for what we should do. What we should do is [...]

I disagree. For reference, I am the OP (Original Poster).

This topic is explicitly and intentionally not about what "should" be done or "ought" to be done, whatever such things mean.

Thus, any mentions or arguments about 'shoulds' or 'oughts' are misdirected/off-topic.

The Original Post contains some very specific points and asks some clear understandable specific questions, none of which have anything to do with 'shoulds' or 'oughts'.

That is, of course, because I don't believe in 'shoulds' and 'oughts'. More on that can be found in my following topics:


- There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'.

- Do you agree there is no problem of evil?

- The Clarity of Amorality

- How Unassertiveness Leads to Aggression and the Illusion of 'Shoulds' and 'Oughts'

- Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man: My Philosophy of Non-Violence, Self-Government, Self-Discipline, and Spiritual Freedom

Well, that's like asking if I want to die. What I want, alone and by itself, has absolutely bearing whatsoever on what reality is or how it can change. The answers are at the level of responses to a child saying it doesn't want to eat dinner. So I don't think it's particularly useful to consider philosophically.

Insofar as you have absolutely no ability to affect such policies, I agree, since I practice the principle of fully and unconditionally accepting that which I cannot control.

A more complete poll than the one in the Original Post (OP) would be one with a forth option: No preference.

[mrlefty0706]

A world without guns would be safer for all, no wars, no crime involving guns, many lives would be saved.

[Scott]

A world without guns would be safer for all, no wars, no crime involving guns, many lives would be saved.

With extreme politeness and respect, I think that is clearly not true. War existed long before guns were invented, and the murder rates per capita were much higher back then.

It's easy to imagine why that might be. For example, it is easier, more profitable, and less dangerous to be a viking when the women and farmers you are going to rape and pillage don't have guns. Might might make right, but equal access to simple guns helps equalize might slightly, and thereby reduces raping and pillaging and such. By simple guns, I mean something as simple as a 10-round non-automatic pistol. And by access I do not mean to exclude any limitations in terms of training, age, and licensing that are much different than it takes to get to drive around legally in a car in places like the USA. I'm generally all for limiting access to guns to the same degree and in the same way we limit access to cars.

Cars of course kill a lot more people than guns, especially simple guns like a 10-round non-automatic pistol.

While history shows it is untrue the world would be safer without the invention of guns, the world almost certainly would be safer without cars.

Granted such discussions are purely hypothetical, unless one has a time machine. We cannot undo the invention of guns or cars.

But the terrible destruction caused by the invention and mass rollout of the latter (cars) is something we can learn from, for the the purposes of how we approach new technology today and in the future, such as AI.

In any case, in regard to the titular question and primary subject of this thread, I know we already agree, which is great: We both chose equality as our answer in the 3-question poll in the Original Post (OP). The majority of other respondents also agree with you and I, which is also great. So it appears gun control isn't nearly as divisive of an issue as many would often think.

[Belindi]

A world without guns would be safer for all, no wars, no crime involving guns, many lives would be saved.

With extreme politeness and respect, I think that is clearly not true. War existed long before guns were invented, and the murder rates per capita were much higher back then.

It's easy to imagine why that might be. For example, it is easier, more profitable, and less dangerous to be a viking when the women and farmers you are going to rape and pillage don't have guns. Might might make right, but equal access to simple guns helps equalize might slightly, and thereby reduces raping and pillaging and such. By simple guns, I mean something as simple as a 10-round non-automatic pistol. And by access I do not mean to exclude any limitations in terms of training, age, and licensing that are much different than it takes to get to drive around legally in a car in places like the USA. I'm generally all for limiting access to guns to the same degree and in the same way we limit access to cars.

Cars of course kill a lot more people than guns, especially simple guns like a 10-round non-automatic pistol.

While history shows it is untrue the world would be safer without the invention of guns, the world almost certainly would be safer without cars.

Granted such discussions are purely hypothetical, unless one has a time machine. We cannot undo the invention of guns or cars.

But the terrible destruction caused by the invention and mass rollout of the latter (cars) is something we can learn from, for the the purposes of how we approach new technology today and in the future, such as AI.

In any case, in regard to the titular question and primary subject of this thread, I know we already agree, which is great: We both chose equality as our answer in the 3-question poll in the Original Post (OP). The majority of other respondents also agree with you and I, which is also great. So it appears gun control isn't nearly as divisive of an issue as many would often think.

If instead of guns the question included all offensive weapons especially knives then the solution would be a lot more weighted in favour of limiting weapons to national defence.

Also recent scientific enquiries about police attitudes show that weapons are safer in police hands if the policemen are properly educated in professional ethics.

[Scott]

War existed long before guns were invented, and the murder rates per capita were much higher back then.

It's easy to imagine why that might be. For example, it is easier, more profitable, and less dangerous to be a viking when the women and farmers you are going to rape and pillage don't have guns. Might might make right, but equal access to simple guns helps equalize might slightly, and thereby reduces raping and pillaging and such. By simple guns, I mean something as simple as a 10-round non-automatic pistol. And by access I do not mean to exclude any limitations in terms of training, age, and licensing that are much different than it takes to get to drive around legally in a car in places like the USA. I'm generally all for limiting access to guns to the same degree and in the same way we limit access to cars.

Cars of course kill a lot more people than guns, especially simple guns like a 10-round non-automatic pistol.

If instead of guns the question included all offensive weapons especially knives then the solution would be a lot more weighted in favour of limiting weapons to national defence.

Also recent scientific enquiries about police attitudes show that weapons are safer in police hands if the policemen are properly educated in professional ethics.

Hi, Belindi,

Thank you for your reply.

Technically, the question in the Original Post (OP) says "guns and weaponry" so if you want neither government agents nor citizens to have guns at all, not even simple tiny low-caliber low-round non-automatic pistols, or even single-round muskets that take multiple minutes to reload from the civil war era, then you could still answer the question, in terms of all weaponry such as dull swords, bows and arrows, and knives, and forks, and spoons. Or really sharp pencils. For example, if you wanted nobody to have guns--not even single-round 100-year-old muskets--but you wanted police to have knives, while citizens like you and I could only have forks but no knives, then you would choose the option to disproportionately disarm citizens and disproportionately arm police.

With that in mind, which of the three options is your answer to the three-question poll in the Original Post (OP)?


Thank you,
Scott

[Belindi]

War existed long before guns were invented, and the murder rates per capita were much higher back then.

It's easy to imagine why that might be. For example, it is easier, more profitable, and less dangerous to be a viking when the women and farmers you are going to rape and pillage don't have guns. Might might make right, but equal access to simple guns helps equalize might slightly, and thereby reduces raping and pillaging and such. By simple guns, I mean something as simple as a 10-round non-automatic pistol. And by access I do not mean to exclude any limitations in terms of training, age, and licensing that are much different than it takes to get to drive around legally in a car in places like the USA. I'm generally all for limiting access to guns to the same degree and in the same way we limit access to cars.

Cars of course kill a lot more people than guns, especially simple guns like a 10-round non-automatic pistol.

If instead of guns the question included all offensive weapons especially knives then the solution would be a lot more weighted in favour of limiting weapons to national defence.

Also recent scientific enquiries about police attitudes show that weapons are safer in police hands if the policemen are properly educated in professional ethics.

Hi, Belindi,

Thank you for your reply.

Technically, the question in the Original Post (OP) says "guns and weaponry" so if you want neither government agents nor citizens to have guns at all, not even simple tiny low-caliber low-round non-automatic pistols, or even single-round muskets that take multiple minutes to reload from the civil war era, then you could still answer the question, in terms of all weaponry such as dull swords, bows and arrows, and knives, and forks, and spoons. Or really sharp pencils. For example, if you wanted nobody to have guns--not even single-round 100-year-old muskets--but you wanted police to have knives, while citizens like you and I could only have forks but no knives, then you would choose the option to disproportionately disarm citizens and disproportionately arm police.

With that in mind, which of the three options is your answer to the three-question poll in the Original Post (OP)?


Thank you,
Scott

For your questionnaire I clicked the option to disproportionately disarm citizens and disproportionately arm police.
The questionnaire did not include educating police recruits in professional ethics and the humanities which would make them more efficient human beings. If a specialised group of men are to be given extraordinary power that group needs extraordinary training and education with the focus on ethics.

[mrlefty0706]

Hi Belinda, sorry I did not respond sooner. I cannot disagree with your view but I answered the question based on guns, especially automatic weapons. Knives, swords, poisonous gas and rocks have probably killed more people since the beginning of human life than guns but in today's world the removal of guns would significantly lower the murder rate, wars and other deaths caused by gunshot.

[Pattern-chaser]

What makes the police different from most other groups is the denial by the above average cops that the incompetent cops are, in fact, incompetent.

I wouldn't dispute that this is the case, but I would dispute that this is what "makes the police different". They aren't different; they're just the same as the rest of us. All of us do what you describe, wrong though it may be, not just the police, the army, the politicians, or whoever. There is an ancient and historic disapproval of 'snitches', even when 'snitching' is a desirable and necessary act...?

[Pattern-chaser]

I believe that neither the police nor citizens should have powerful guns and weaponry.

I think we both agree then with the 3-answer poll question, in that it sounds like we both chose option #1: "Equality: I want citizens to have the same access to guns as cops under the same general conditions for each (e.g. similar safety training, background checks, minimum age requirements, etc.)"

I don't think that is so. I didn't complete the poll because it lacked a fourth option: no-one should have access to killing-tools. I think this missing fourth option is what mrlefty0706 is referring to. It is definitely what I am referring to, and advocating.

I could not vote, because I prefer there are no guns for anyone, and that this becomes the gun laws.

Yes, this is my view too.

[Scott]

Hi, Pattern-chaser and Count Lucanor,

Thank you for your replies!

I could not vote, because I prefer there are no guns for anyone, and that this becomes the gun laws.

I believe that neither the police nor citizens should have powerful guns and weaponry.

I think we both agree then with the 3-answer poll question, in that it sounds like we both chose option #1: "Equality: I want citizens to have the same access to guns as cops under the same general conditions for each (e.g. similar safety training, background checks, minimum age requirements, etc.)"

I don't think that is so. I didn't complete the poll because it lacked a fourth option: no-one should have access to killing-tools. I think this missing fourth option is what mrlefty0706 is referring to. It is definitely what I am referring to, and advocating.

#1 -- The titular questions uses the word "weaponry" not "killing-tools". My 11-year-old daughter's huge super sharp kitchen knife is presumably also a weapon and a killing tool. One could much more easily kill with that huge super sharp knife than a BB gun or stungun. In fact, in one-on-one combat to the death, in which I get to choose my weapon from the two options, I'd probably choose my 11-year-old daughter's huge sharp kitchen knife over a weak little low-caliber 5-round non-automatic pistol. Some guns are so weak they really only work on birds not humans, and other guns are non-lethal by design. A gun that would be good for killing a human would typically ruin a bird-eater's dinner if used on the bird.

#2 -- Regardless, if you would quantify the amount of guns and/or weaponry you want cops and citizens to have as both being zero, then the answer is clearly equality. 0 = 0. In other words, if you don't want cops or citizens to have any weapons at all, including bean bag guns or huge super sharp knives, then the answer is equality. If the amount of guns you want cops to have is zero, and the amount of guns you want citizens to have is zero, then the answer is equality because zero equals zero.

In other words, the "forth option" you state is itself a subset of one of the three options: equality.

If you want cops to have no access to guns, and you want citizens to have no access to guns, then your answer is equality. If both have no access, then both have the same access.

Due to the way math works, the three options are exhaustive, and mutually exclusive.

Either A > B; A < B; or A = B.



Thank you,
Scott

[Count Lucanor]

#2 -- Regardless, if you would quantify the amount of guns and/or weaponry you want cops and citizens to have as both being zero, then the answer is clearly equality. 0 = 0. In other words, if you don't want cops or citizens to have any weapons at all, including bean bag guns or huge super sharp knives, then the answer is equality. If the amount of guns you want cops to have is zero, and the amount of guns you want citizens to have is zero, then the answer is equality because zero equals zero.

In other words, the "forth option" you state is itself a subset of one of the three options: equality.

If you want cops to have no access to guns, and you want citizens to have no access to guns, then your answer is equality. If both have no access, then both have the same access.

Due to the way math works, the three options are exhaustive, and mutually exclusive.

Either A > B; A < B; or A = B.

Not quite so. The "equality" option in the poll states that it implies "the same access to guns as cops". It is not evident that the range includes the amount of zero guns, because cops universally ALREADY have access to guns/weaponry, as the police force has been typically an instrument of repression from the state, which owns the legal monopoly for violence. Note that not carrying guns/weaponry does not imply not having legal access to guns/weaponry.

Since cops have access to guns just by being cops, then the amount of zero guns is not available for citizens in the "equality" option of the poll.

[mrlefty0706]

I have enjoyed reading the many responses to this question. There are several perspectives and if we remove politics from the equation the best answer significantly reduces the number of people that are hurt or killed by guns each year. When the right to bear arms was added as one of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution guns were single shot muskets not semi-automatic or fully-automatic guns like what exists today. Single shot rifles can be used for hunting and will give the game a fighting chance to survive. If revolvers were the only hand gun available for people to defend their home and family the threat of discharging the gun would probably deter many thieves and assailants. I am not a gun person and I am shocked by the daily gunshot killings and I believe tough gun legislation would significantly reduce these killings. So many innocent victims struck by random shots would be alive today. I personally believe hunting should be by bow and arrow which takes great skill and gives the animal a fighting chance. Wars would undoubtedly continue even if guns were totally removed since they occurred before guns were invented.