Guns

[rob47]

here is CBC's random report on 'the real toronto' dvd.  This DVD came out i think just after a 15 year old girl was killed by a stray bullet? I think so anyway, maybe it came out earlier. but it is an interesting documentary for sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjhJgR4ZR8A


here's the website with some various new articles collected about it.

https://www.realtorontodvd.com/media.html

[lisztisforkids]

Prometheus,
 
  For someone that has a distrust of large Governement, and a strong supporter of basic civil rights, you pursue the type of Goverment that is one of the most dangerous to basic rights, and is large and burecratic.

[prometheus]

I already refuted your point.

[lisztisforkids]

I already refuted your point.

 Really? I have never made this point in this argument. But it is true. You have already even supported my points earlier on, "my country is the largest in intercepted and watched phone calls", "I am required to carry a ID werever I go".

[prometheus]

You did. Furtermore, even if you didn't you already read that I would support Libertarian Socialism. Which means no government at all.

Yes, those two things are true and I pointed them out. Why? Because I hate it. Not because I like it.

[lisztisforkids]

You did. Furtermore, even if you didn't you already read that I would support Libertarian Socialism.

  Out of curiosity, can you explain what Libertarian Socialism is, how society would function, and how to reach Libertarian Socialism?

[prometheus]

It is a form of anarchism. You would have decentralised communities. There would be no government, no country, no borders and no army.

How this turns out exactly depends on how the people themselves choose to live. So this is the most pure form of democracy.

So you can have both a community with people that are all 'gun nuts' and a community that decides to now have any of them.

But at the same time the communities will go after their own common good. This is the socialism trait in this system.

The point of no laws and no government is that it is a concentration of power and that power leads to oppression, leaders lead to conflict, etc. You can't have a war if there so no leader that forces the people to war. So if you reduce concentrations of power to the minimum you will eliminate this problem.

The socialism aspect presupposes that the people will organise themselves and work together. This is not a very strange thing to think because humans are social animals. Also, humans have lived this way for a long time throughout history.

So this system does require a degree of wisdom and compassion. But these traits are not unheard of in humans. There have been cases of anarchism in human history. These forms were all destroyed from the outside.

[anekdote]

It is a form of anarchism. You would have decentralised communities. There would be no government, no country, no borders and no army.

How this turns out exactly depends on how the people themselves choose to live. So this is the most pure form of democracy.

So you can have both a community with people that are all 'gun nuts' and a community that decides to now have any of them.

But at the same time the communities will go after their own common good. This is the socialism trait in this system.

The point of no laws and no government is that it is a concentration of power and that power leads to oppression, leaders lead to conflict, etc. You can't have a war if there so no leader that forces the people to war. So if you reduce concentrations of power to the minimum you will eliminate this problem.

The socialism aspect presupposes that the people will organise themselves and work together. This is not a very strange thing to think because humans are social animals. Also, humans have lived this way for a long time throughout history.

So this system does require a degree of wisdom and compassion. But these traits are not unheard of in humans. There have been cases of anarchism in human history. These forms were all destroyed from the outside.

You really are naive. How can you take anarchism and utopia seriously.

"You would have decentralised communities. There would be no government, no country, no borders and no army."

This is called tribalism. Do you know what tribalism leads to? War. Warlords. Without governments people and communities become whimsical.

There is an inherent contradiction between order (civilization) and chaos (tribalism).

Tribalism is the antithesis of civilization and cultured life. Civilization is a force which brings order out of chaos and establishes a sense of permanence.

Here is a good Kenneth Clark quote: "People sometimes tell me that they prefer barbarism to civilization. I doubt if they have given it a long enough trial. Like the people of Alexandria, they are bored by civilisation; but all the evidence suggests that the boredom of barbarism is infinitely greater."

[anekdote]

It is a form of anarchism. You would have decentralised communities. There would be no government, no country, no borders and no army.

How this turns out exactly depends on how the people themselves choose to live. So this is the most pure form of democracy.

So you can have both a community with people that are all 'gun nuts' and a community that decides to now have any of them.

But at the same time the communities will go after their own common good. This is the socialism trait in this system.

The point of no laws and no government is that it is a concentration of power and that power leads to oppression, leaders lead to conflict, etc. You can't have a war if there so no leader that forces the people to war. So if you reduce concentrations of power to the minimum you will eliminate this problem.

The socialism aspect presupposes that the people will organise themselves and work together. This is not a very strange thing to think because humans are social animals. Also, humans have lived this way for a long time throughout history.

So this system does require a degree of wisdom and compassion. But these traits are not unheard of in humans. There have been cases of anarchism in human history. These forms were all destroyed from the outside.

"How this turns out exactly depends on how the people themselves choose to live. So this is the most pure form of democracy."

No. If there is no government and the community is "decentralized" (whatever you mean by that), people will automatically arrange themselves into a social hierarchy. The chances are very slim that something democratic would be arranged. It would never be the perfect utopia you envision.

"So you can have both a community with people that are all 'gun nuts' and a community that decides to now have any of them."

The "gun nut" community is running out of land. They attack a neighboring community and steal their land. Without government or centralization, education to a standard is impossible. Because of this they probably wouldn't even think warfare was wrong. They would think it a necessity, but not something to be avoided. They would hardly be pacifistic. Which leads me to my next point.

"But at the same time the communities will go after their own common good. This is the socialism trait in this system."

To a degree. The common good maybe conquest of neighboring lands so that their farmland and women can be taken. Or anything else the leaders feel is "good." You forget that when government is abolished and society is decentralized into "enclaves" education and "cultured life" will cease to exist.

There will be no inter-enclave cooperation. There will only be intra-enclave nepotism.

[cfortunato]

It is a form of anarchism. You would have decentralised communities. There would be no government, no country, no borders and no army.

And you think that would be more successful that the current system of the United States - which is the most successful in the history of the world.

Maybe civilization was a mistake, and we should never have stopped being hunters/gatherers, eh?

[prometheus]

If you take in account the amount of resources, the lack of war, the size of the population and the power in the arena of world politics the US is doing very very poor.

And the discussion about anarchism, it is quite far off topic. I suggest opening a new topic.

[musik_man]

If you take in account the amount of resources, the lack of war, the size of the population and the power in the arena of world politics the US is doing very very poor.

And the discussion about anarchism, it is quite far off topic. I suggest opening a new topic.

You are a very silly man.  You know that right?  The US, the wealthiest and most free nation in the history of the world, is doing poorly.

Pianolearner, when used properly a gun results in one of two things.  The first occurs when several holes near the center of several concentric rings appear.  The second is when some criminal is prevented from carrying out his crime due to the fact that he has several large holes in himself.

[timothy42b]

You are a very silly man.  You know that right?  The US, the wealthiest and most free nation in the history of the world, is doing poorly.

Pianolearner, when used properly a gun results in one of two things.  The first occurs when several holes near the center of several concentric rings appear.  The second is when some criminal is prevented from carrying out his crime due to the fact that he has several large holes in himself.

musik man,
You have oversimplified, there can be more than two outcomes.  <g>

I shot a round of skeet last Saturday.  Several (though not near as many as I would have liked) clay frisbees were blasted into little bits.  My daughter bowled.  Several (though not as many as she would have liked) pins were smashed into a reclining position. 

Both are fun.  Neither poses any risk to society.  But pianolearner would ban my game, because it scares her. 

[musik_man]

musik man,
You have oversimplified, there can be more than two outcomes.  <g>

I shot a round of skeet last Saturday.  Several (though not near as many as I would have liked) clay frisbees were blasted into little bits.  My daughter bowled.  Several (though not as many as she would have liked) pins were smashed into a reclining position. 

Both are fun.  Neither poses any risk to society.  But pianolearner would ban my game, because it scares her. 

Well, by 'holes in concentric rings' I do mean target practicing, which I would put skeet shooting under.  I do realize that I forgot hunting though. >.>

[pianolearner]

You are a very silly man.  You know that right?  The US, the wealthiest and most free nation in the history of the world, is doing poorly.

Pianolearner, when used properly a gun results in one of two things.  The first occurs when several holes near the center of several concentric rings appear.  The second is when some criminal is prevented from carrying out his crime due to the fact that he has several large holes in himself.

I didn’t say “properly” and I didn’t say “gun”. I said, “assault rifle” and “meant to be used”. Target shooters don’t need to fire 1200 rounds/minute to hit their mark unless they are totally inept and need to spray the target area in order to hit something. Anyone firing this number of bullets at a criminal is more likely to injure/kill an innocent bystander with a few stray bullets.

Back in Sydney I had a work colleague who I think was the best example of a gun enthusiast. He was a keen camper and hunter. He owned a few guns that were all bolt action and he kept them locked in a steel safe that was fixed firmly to a concrete floor. He had a very sensible and responsible philosophy about the use of guns. Basically, he only killed an animal that he intended to eat. He did not fire at the animal unless he was absolutely certain it would be killed by that shot, (1 shot 1 kill). His golden rule was that you should only ever point a gun at something if you intend to kill it. In other words, anyone who points a gun at another person has committed a crime tantamount to murder even if they didn’t pull the trigger. We never really get into deep discussions about the use of guns for self-defence but I got the impression that he would only use his gun if he had to kill a person that was endangering his life or the life of another person.

It didn’t bother him when the government imposed a ban of rapid firing, military weapons because he couldn’t see why anyone would need to own one. I agree with him and that is what my argument has been about. Nobody has yet given sound reasons for owning such a weapon. The only thing I keep reading is that it is your right to own these weapons and you don’t WANT to justify anything. Without intending to offend, this is the type of argument I would expect from a spoiled child. Why do you want this? WAAAA, I want an assault rifle! Yes, but why? WAAAA!!!, I WANT AN ASSAULT RIFLE!!!

Tim, I said before, guns don’t scare me. I’m not sure if “her” was intended as an insult or if you really think I’m a girl.

[musik_man]

As Timothy said earlier, an assault rifle is not a machine gun.  Most 'assault rifles' are in fact semi-automatics.

[pianolearner]

As Timothy said earlier, an assault rifle is not a machine gun.  Most 'assault rifles' are in fact semi-automatics.

Do you think anyone (apart from police and military) needs a rapid firing weapon?

[musik_man]

Do you think anyone (apart from police and military) needs a rapid firing weapon?

I don't decide for other people what they do or don't need. 

[timothy42b]

Sorry, pianolearner, I thought I remembered from an earlier post you were.  I should have said him/her just to be safe.  No offense was intended.

I think the risk, need, and design positions are finally clear.

I believe a society can and should prohibit or restrict items and actions that offer a demonstrated and significant risk.  The risk must be quantifiable and compelling, and the action taken must actually do some good.  This could apply to guns, porn, radionuclides, drugs, etc. 

Pianolearner on the other hand believes it is perfectly reasonable to ban anything that is not needed, whether or not it offers risk.  Further, he will also ban anything that doesn't meet his moral standards of design, whether or not it offers risk. 

Assault rifles - well, let's call them scarey big guns, there isn't really a good definition - offer a test case.  They are involved in a negligible amount of crime, so low as to be almost undetectable.  The converse to that is that removing them all from existence will not affect crime rates in the slightest.  So they do not meet my standards for prohibition.  There is no real risk, nor any benefit from the ban.  Pianolearner will ban them because he doesn't know of a need.  I could argue that point - pretty much all high power rifle competitions are shot with versions of them - but I won't because I don't admit need as a criterion.  Further, pianolearner will argue that they should be banned because they may have been designed with the idea they would be used on humans.  Again, I don't see any relevance of design.  The fact is they are NOT used on humans to any measurable degree, hence pose no risk. 

I will agree that there is a case where "need" does apply.

You can have a product that is intrinsically hazardous but essential.  Then there is at the same time justification for prohibition, but requirement to use.  An example might be hydrofluoric acid.  It's really nasty stuff, you don't want to be anywhere near it, but there are industrial processes that can't be done without it.  The reverse case, of something that is harmless but should be banned because it isn't needed, would not exist in a free society. 

[timothy42b]

Target shooters don’t need to fire 1200 rounds/minute to hit their mark unless they are totally inept and need to spray the target area in order to hit something. Anyone firing this number of bullets at a criminal is more likely to injure/kill an innocent bystander with a few stray bullets.

Umm, this is completely irrelevant to the argument, but I risk losing my reputation as a nitpicker if I don't point out something.

The removable magazine on an AR-15 (a semi-automatic rifle commonly used in competitions, and probably fitting your definition of assault rifle) holds 20 rounds.

To fire 1200 rounds per minute will therefore require you to change magazines 60 times, once per second, while firing 20 rounds a second. 

I know you are probably a better pianist than I, but I don't think I could make my fingers move that fast.  I couldn't even trill that fast if I didn't have to aim and change magazines. 

So anyone firing that many rounds at a criminal is not really likely to injure anyone with stray bullets.  Anyone who can do that is clearly superhuman!

[pianolearner]

Sorry, pianolearner, I thought I remembered from an earlier post you were.  I should have said him/her just to be safe.  No offense was intended.

I think the risk, need, and design positions are finally clear.

I believe a society can and should prohibit or restrict items and actions that offer a demonstrated and significant risk.  The risk must be quantifiable and compelling, and the action taken must actually do some good.  This could apply to guns, porn, radionuclides, drugs, etc. 

You don't believe in prevention? Can you give examples of items that are restricted in the USA that you think offer a demonstrated and significant risk? Do you think anything criminals really want and use that are big, scary and deadly pose a demonstrated and significant risk?

Pianolearner on the other hand believes it is perfectly reasonable to ban anything that is not needed, whether or not it offers risk.  Further, he will also ban anything that doesn't meet his moral standards of design, whether or not it offers risk. 

Not strictly true. I have been talking about certain types of guns.

Assault rifles - well, let's call them scarey big guns, there isn't really a good definition - offer a test case.  They are involved in a negligible amount of crime, so low as to be almost undetectable.  The converse to that is that removing them all from existence will not affect crime rates in the slightest.  So they do not meet my standards for prohibition.  There is no real risk, nor any benefit from the ban.  Pianolearner will ban them because he doesn't know of a need.  I could argue that point - pretty much all high power rifle competitions are shot with versions of them - but I won't because I don't admit need as a criterion.  Further, pianolearner will argue that they should be banned because they may have been designed with the idea they would be used on humans.  Again, I don't see any relevance of design.  The fact is they are NOT used on humans to any measurable degree, hence pose no risk.

I can say the same thing about crossbows. I lived in Australia most of my life and I don't recall ever hearing about one being used in a crime. Maybe I missed the news that day! Criminals aren't running around with crossbows now just because legislation there has been toughened.

https://www.ausbow.com.au/excal.html

Should innocent civilians be afraid now?

I will agree that there is a case where "need" does apply.

You can have a product that is intrinsically hazardous but essential.  Then there is at the same time justification for prohibition, but requirement to use.  An example might be hydrofluoric acid.  It's really nasty stuff, you don't want to be anywhere near it, but there are industrial processes that can't be done without it.  The reverse case, of something that is harmless but should be banned because it isn't needed, would not exist in a free society. 

Can anyone buy hydrofluoric acid?

[timothy42b]

Interesting about the crossbow. 

Never been used in a crime, huh?  And with good reason, I guess.  It's kind of hard to imagine how you'd do that.  Go into a bank and pull it out of your pocket, yell stickem up, I think they'd laugh. 

If you could get one in a pocket.  or a backpack.  (they are big.  I never owned one but I shot one at a German fest recently.)  If it didn't take forever to cock and load it. 

I'm sorry but I draw some conclusions from that story.

One is that Australia is kind of screwed up.  It is apparently policy that the GOVT will only allow you what you can prove you need, and nobody complains.  Why should honest people not be allowed a crossbow? 

The other is that banning or severely restricting items that pose no risk seems to make you feel better.  Shoot, (oops, bad choice of expletive) lawnmowers kill more people every year, as do peanut allergies.  Maybe put some effort into making those safer. 

Now,  just a wild guess here.  Do you think that it's possible that the recent Australian gun ban didn't actually have any effect on crime?  (not surprisingly) So now we have to ban crossbows?  and then when that has no effect, what next, steak knives?  You have mad cow there, so nobody really needs to eat beef.  Do you think maybe we're seeing the domino effect? 

[pianolearner]

Interesting about the crossbow. 

Never been used in a crime, huh?  And with good reason, I guess.  It's kind of hard to imagine how you'd do that.  Go into a bank and pull it out of your pocket, yell stickem up, I think they'd laugh. 

 

I'm a bit confused by your comment. Are you saying that we should only ban weapons that we can imagine being used in a crime, like a bowling ball or swimming pool?

For some reason you chose to ignore my other questions..

[timothy42b]

I'm a bit confused by your comment. Are you saying that we should only ban weapons that we can imagine being used in a crime, like a bowling ball or swimming pool?

For some reason you chose to ignore my other questions..

No.  I am saying the only reason to ban or severely restrict something is that it offers a real risk, not just a risk somebody perceives.  At least this is true in a free society.  In a totalitarian society the opposite is true, everything is by definition prohibited unless the State allows it, which they will only do if you "NEED" it.   And maybe not then. 

When we try to analyze what the real risk is, we can use logic (like the fault tree analysis that is done for power plants) but the most valid data is usually actual experience.  If there were much likelihood of crossbows being used in crime, there would be statistics on crossbow crimes to prove it.  Our current experience is that crossbows and assault rifles are used in an insignificantly small amount of crime.  Yet, they seem to weigh large in our perception, in our fears.  Logic will also tell you their use is unlikely, but to use it you would have to actually know something about the weapon and the crime, and most people lack knowledge of either.

Making legislation based on fear instead of actual risk, besides being morally wrong, is counterproductive.  It soon becomes clear that after the initial relief, our fear returns, because we aren't really any safer.  We never revoke the legislation, we just add more.  And more. 

Here is a quote from Ben Franklin, a person who long ago had a large impact on both the US and Australian constitutions:  "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety are deserve neither liberty nor safety."