Reply about gun ownership.
1) Making guns more accessible for innocent people also makes them more accessible for people who you will supposedly defend yourself from. Directly or indirectly.
2) There is no psychological test and control reliable enough to guarantee that no person will mistakenly use a gun (threatening to reach a certain objective, hurting or even killing).
Being able to achieve a relatively stable emotional state in routine circumstances doesn't mean that some wouldn't shoot a gun because of a misunderstood or magnified minor threat. Even professionals do mistakes.
Let alone considering how people's circumstances change. What today is an emotionally stable man with a job and a wife, tomorrow could be a divorced and jobless one that swims in his own frustration with life.
3) Related to 1, but everybody will have to sleep, take a shower and what not. It's impossible to have total control of a gun. Not everyone could use a strongbox (even in such case a key or password isn't absolutely reliable).
4) The tweet uses clearly an I told ya fallacy that doesn't make any sense, which is why it's dumb.
We have a problem X (assaults), with a certain cause.
2) There is no psychological test and control reliable enough to guarantee that no person will mistakenly use a gun (threatening to reach a certain objective, hurting or even killing).
Being able to achieve a relatively stable emotional state in routine circumstances doesn't mean that some wouldn't shoot a gun because of a misunderstood or magnified minor threat. Even professionals do mistakes.
Let alone considering how people's circumstances change. What today is an emotionally stable man with a job and a wife, tomorrow could be a divorced and jobless one that swims in his own frustration with life.
3) Related to 1, but everybody will have to sleep, take a shower and what not. It's impossible to have total control of a gun. Not everyone could use a strongbox (even in such case a key or password isn't absolutely reliable).
4) The tweet uses clearly an I told ya fallacy that doesn't make any sense, which is why it's dumb.
We have a problem X (assaults), with a certain cause.
Then we have person A that suggests: buy guns for protection...
And person B that suggests: don't buy guns and call the police... bruh.
And person B that suggests: don't buy guns and call the police... bruh.
Assuming the news about the police being overwhelmed (very recent) were public after the suggestion of A and B (which sounds like a strawman, but let's say someone said sometime in the past that word by word), A can't use the news to disprove B as evidence that supports his/her point, because A's suggestion wasn't buy guns because the police won't come/is overwhelmed with assaults. The suggestion was regarding protection, period. Now with new info we could ask A and B what they think in the new circumstances, but it wasn't known until now or recently. In any case before both suggestions.
Mocking B because of such news is retarded because neither A nor B could guess the police would be overwhelmed, and the police being overwhelmed is another problem, not anything that supports A's suggestion per se.
This is like if someone says tHe cLiMaTe ChAnGe iS bAd bRuH, because now we know Corona virus may have a harder time partly thanks to it. It's opportunistic, because having one current positive point doesn't make it good.
Mocking B because of such news is retarded because neither A nor B could guess the police would be overwhelmed, and the police being overwhelmed is another problem, not anything that supports A's suggestion per se.
This is like if someone says tHe cLiMaTe ChAnGe iS bAd bRuH, because now we know Corona virus may have a harder time partly thanks to it. It's opportunistic, because having one current positive point doesn't make it good.
5) Innocents/Not innocents isn't a representative dichotomy of individuals regarding their development. It's a mere pragmatic classification related to concrete acts, while the development itself of any person that leads to certain acts is incredibly complex.
Leaving hypothetical genetic factors for psychopathy and other pathologies aside, since obviously the most of the robbers aren't psychopaths (and it would still not justify the dichotomy, as predispositions don't imply necessarily immoral acts), the fact is that nobody is born not innocent.
And being not innocent doesn't mean the solution is to kill or put him/her in a situation where it's considerably likely to be killed just because the robber wanted to steal a TV.
This is why A and B aren't even addressing the cause, which is obviously related to the mentioned development of individuals. Real solutions have to do with education and social-economic factors.
At most we would have to be discussing how to treat the symptoms while addressing the real cause, because obviously such factors can't be changed out of a sudden. Even if we could, current generations and social groups would not change suddenly either, but progressively with a lot of time.
The thing is that even in that case it could be mitigated in other ways, instead of distributing even more guns in the society. Like improving security systems, implementing a stricter gun control/restrictions/prohibition, increasing police's resources to cover more areas and quicker, implementing more cameras or vigilance overall (clearly visible), etc. Giving every family or independent person a gun has too many disadvantages.
6) Possible counter-arguments:
- People use cars, for example, which are technically much more dangerous than a gun...
Yeah, but a car has another objective and it's necessary. The possible negative side-effects (accidents or even someone deliberately killing people with a vehicle) happen after a much stricter process of education and examination. And the context implies over analyzed infrastructures to make transport as predictable and controlled as possible. While an encounter between 2 or more individuals, having at least one of them a gun (let alone if more), don't have any guidelines, traffic signals, etc. They happen in a matter of a few seconds in a very different emotional context.
- People use cars, for example, which are technically much more dangerous than a gun...
Yeah, but a car has another objective and it's necessary. The possible negative side-effects (accidents or even someone deliberately killing people with a vehicle) happen after a much stricter process of education and examination. And the context implies over analyzed infrastructures to make transport as predictable and controlled as possible. While an encounter between 2 or more individuals, having at least one of them a gun (let alone if more), don't have any guidelines, traffic signals, etc. They happen in a matter of a few seconds in a very different emotional context.
Same goes for a knife, drill or anything else. They are necessary. A gun or fire weapons is not (besides police and professionals).
And speaking about cars, when you walk on the street, any driver could intentionally kill you (for whatever reason). Even if you say it's not nearly as likely as being assaulted/robbed, it's still a chance... Do we have guns always ready because of that? No, because there is a normalized collective trust, analogous to the cooperative tendency from prisoners' dilemma.
What the problem of the prisoners doesn't take into account is that individuals keep having to cooperate to maintain an universable order in society, which is why the truly rational answer is to cooperate, avoiding an escalating non-universable sequence from individualism or even egoism.
In our example it would be everyone buying a gun, despite increasing the risks. And if everyone has a gun, the escalation would keep going, as it would be already the norm. In this sense, even if expressed poorly, the tweet you were subtweeting had a point.
Obviously not 3 or 4 guns, but robbers or assailants could start using assault rifles, or assault in bigger groups and more organized, or whatever. Of course, the escalation could keep going (which is basically what happens with dumb leaders/governments investing in weaponry). And yet the real problem would still not be addressed.
What the problem of the prisoners doesn't take into account is that individuals keep having to cooperate to maintain an universable order in society, which is why the truly rational answer is to cooperate, avoiding an escalating non-universable sequence from individualism or even egoism.
In our example it would be everyone buying a gun, despite increasing the risks. And if everyone has a gun, the escalation would keep going, as it would be already the norm. In this sense, even if expressed poorly, the tweet you were subtweeting had a point.
Obviously not 3 or 4 guns, but robbers or assailants could start using assault rifles, or assault in bigger groups and more organized, or whatever. Of course, the escalation could keep going (which is basically what happens with dumb leaders/governments investing in weaponry). And yet the real problem would still not be addressed.
- The example with climate change and COVID is misleading, because it was impossible to predict, while there is a logical relation between the police being overwhelmed/without enough resources, and easing preventively their work with guns for innocent people.
Even an ambulance or firemen can come way too late, that doesn't mean people have to start improvising surgeries without preparation and education to treat others or enter buildings in fire (besides the obvious things anybody can do). If there is a tendency, then of course more resources have to be distributed.
Even an ambulance or firemen can come way too late, that doesn't mean people have to start improvising surgeries without preparation and education to treat others or enter buildings in fire (besides the obvious things anybody can do). If there is a tendency, then of course more resources have to be distributed.
Problems in logistics appear because obviously the system is imperfect. I live in Germany, which is pretty safe (and not precisely because all of us have a gun).
This doesn't mean I couldn't be the betrayed prisoner despite doing my part of what's collectively smarter. I could get killed tomorrow by someone with a gun, but if I and everyone else would buy a gun systematically because of this thought, we would make Germany itself less safe because of everything explained... And then we would need bigger weapons.
This doesn't mean I couldn't be the betrayed prisoner despite doing my part of what's collectively smarter. I could get killed tomorrow by someone with a gun, but if I and everyone else would buy a gun systematically because of this thought, we would make Germany itself less safe because of everything explained... And then we would need bigger weapons.
Let's change the example of COVID. Imagine an hypothetical where out of a sudden some disarmed country is targeted with a nuclear missile. A reaction analogous to that tweet would be: lEt'S DiSaRm nUcLeAr WeApOnS iN oUr CoUnTry.
Such a negative event or situation doesn't mean the decision to disarm wasn't right in terms of logistics and universality. It simply means there was an idiot in that other country that didn't make the most logical decision, and kept nuclear missiles and even used one of them for whatever reason (without entering in the discussion of how that idiot was created and how he reached such a status to make such decisions...).
- I admitted indirectly that technically professionals are morally allowed to have guns because of their (assuming/hypothetically) good preparation. This means I consider a proper formation plausible for gun ownership, despite the risks. Why couldn't other people have guns after such formation too...
Well, if you had to invest resources for a proper formation for everyone who wants a gun for protection and considers himself/herself innocent, we could have a problem with resources. On top of this, professionals not only have a training, but they are (on paper) frequently in emotionally tense situations, developing (on paper) a better ability to stay calm and make right decisions. Same goes for keeping properly their gun safe from others, etc. While other people have completely different routines.
Additionally, as I said, they are necessary in our context. It's still a risk, but a necessary one. While people who would have it just for protection would not offer any additional service. They would increase the mentioned risk and the escalation for an illusion of safety.
Well, if you had to invest resources for a proper formation for everyone who wants a gun for protection and considers himself/herself innocent, we could have a problem with resources. On top of this, professionals not only have a training, but they are (on paper) frequently in emotionally tense situations, developing (on paper) a better ability to stay calm and make right decisions. Same goes for keeping properly their gun safe from others, etc. While other people have completely different routines.
Additionally, as I said, they are necessary in our context. It's still a risk, but a necessary one. While people who would have it just for protection would not offer any additional service. They would increase the mentioned risk and the escalation for an illusion of safety.
If someone broke into your home is having a gun an illusion of safety or the tool that could save your life and livelihood? If you are attacked by an animal (humans are animals too, remember) is having a gun an illusion of safety or an essential tool in wilderness that can and will save your life?
ResponderEliminarDon't rely on the state to protect you and don't give them privileges the common person doesn't have, it's a recipe for easy tyranny. You're saying only trained professionals should have guns so mostly military and police, government officials.
Convenient they are the only ones who can train enough to have the right to practice with firearms. It's not like it's a highly technical and interesting hobby tons of people are genuinely passionate about and has many actual positive utility like use in wildlife conservation, ofc you would say in your pretension "get a better hobby" how about no? How about we actually address societal issues that cause gun violence in the USA like cultural and ideological subversion instead of acting like normal people are the problem for liking guns.
The gun laws where I live are basically the same as in the States, you can freely buy powerful firearms in stores, shotguns, hunting rifles etc. You need a permit for automatic weapons. This is exactly how firearm laws are for most States in the US. We never have mass shootings, we get gang shootings in big cities pretty regularly but no one cares about that because police hide statistics and downplay the severity of the problem, because that would cause people to actually think about what's going on around them. It's the same reason the amount of gang violence in inner cities in the USA is downplayed to make the proverbial "mass shooting" seem like it only occurs in places without gun control when that's not even remotely true.
I love how to you cars are some kind of necessity for our way of life when their function is something our bodies were quite literally designed to do day in day out on their own the only function cars have is to make us lazy, harm us, the planet, and make life more dangerous and obnoxiously loud for everybody.
But of course since it isn't a firearm you give the benefit of the doubt and can come up with reasons for why they're ok when they are powerful machines that people hurt and kill others through negligence all the time with, and they can be effectively used as weapons too. Why is it ok for everyone to have easy access to a motorized battering ram but it's too much for people to be able to get something that spits lead? Just because it was designed for killing? You better be vegan.
You're highly intelligent but I feel like you're being lazy with this reply, knowingly or unknowingly.
Do you think killing is necessary? Like as in it's a force of nature and will always happen, we will always have to kill to survive kind of thing. Personally I don't believe it always will be, but it has been, and the reasoning for guns being invented is in relation to that. Disregard all the politics and stuff happening in the now in relation to them. Think of life without firearms, without the technology to create them. Imagine what it was like when killing was necessary and you couldn't use a gun to do it. I believe guns were invented as a way of being merciful, as a way of making the killing needed to survive less brutal and visceral. So the greater issue really is, how do we prevent the need to kill and therefore prevent the need to create things that can kill quickly and effeciently?
EliminarI'm not a gun enthusiast I just know people who are and have had open minded conversations with them about the topic. I do like and admire the crafstmanship and history of firearms and how unique and varied all the designs and stories of the creations of different firearms can be, which I got interested in from playing video games. I used to be very anti firearm but I've realized over the years that they are kind of really fuckin' cool and interesting pieces of human ingenuity and history. And they can be just that, a part of our history, but that would mean something a little more radical...
https://itsmorecornflakes.blogspot.com/2020/04/guns2.html
Eliminar