• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Ridiculous U.S. gun laws.

arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 42253"/>
"Mistakes are the spice of language" - Some guy with bad spelling.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
21st Demon Lord said:
@Sparhafoc
My main problems are actually pretty simple.
1. Trust. I do not trust complete strangers enough, to be comfortable with them carrying around deadly weapons.
I am not paranoid, so I do not think everyone wants to kill me, but after years in traffic, I view my fellow man as irresponsible enough to accidentally kill me.
Click to expand...

I am not sure why you're addressing this to me when you must have already seen my pessimistic take on humanity, and you have to bear in mind I'm an anthropologist, so I've spent a considerable portion of my life learning just what humans are capable of! ;)

I don't trust you all either. I don't mean that in a rude way, but I grew up in cities, lived in major metropolitan areas all my life, so I walk past countless thousands of strangers every day - all of which could mean me ill intent. But by and large, the vast majority of people just want what I want - to navigate the human morass as quickly and with as little interaction as possible!

But to benefit from living in a society, one must allow other people to exist in that society, and ideally everyone should enjoy maximal possible freedom.

At that point, you can return to my earlier post which sets out the formulation linking one person's right to X denying another person's right to Y.

A just solution must be achievable; all parties should be able to accommodate each other.


21st Demon Lord said:
2. I do not accept that someone has the right to own a deadly weapon for the pursuit of pleasure at the cost of public(my) safety.
Click to expand...

But you've not established that every form of possession of guns necessarily indicates a cost to public safety.

Farmers use guns to shoot rabbits that damage their crops. Department of Health, Forestry, Whatever directly pay people to hunt specific quantities of grazing animals so that the herds can be managed. Sportsman must practice to become good, they have to join gun clubs and shoot at targets, and for there to be future Olympian testaments to humanity's mastery of hand-eye coordination over distances, then less skilled neophytes need access to shooting ranges to hone their skills.

And you have to explain why someone can't go to a gun club and shoot a gun at a target just for fun... why not? Unless you live next door, how the fuck is it harming you? You can't deny other people's freedom in the abstract - you have no standing at all in challenging them because they're not actually harming you. I can offer no reason why you would wish to deny them that freedom, but were you capable of effecting it, I think you would actually materially harm society - albeit in a fairly minor way as we could still use other techniques to manage forests, woodlands, fields.... but we could kiss any chance of a Winter Olympics' gold medal goodbye.


21st Demon Lord said:
I can begrudgingly accept that some people need a gun for their job, but thats their livelyhood and we are talking trained professionals under strict regulations(hopefully).
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but I do think there are many more perfectly justifiable reasons people may want to use guns, and I don't think you or I have any right to stop them.

On the flip side, I think there has been, and can't really be, any rational argument for the proliferation of personal ownership of guns, specifically with regards to those people feeling they need those guns to protect themselves. That's the ethically calamitous component here: not the mere existence of guns.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
@Sparhafoc Rest assured, he's going to ignore everything you just said and pretend you said something else. It's a frequent occurrence with this contributor.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 42253"/>
Sparhafoc said:
I am not sure why you're addressing this to me when you must have already seen my pessimistic take on humanity, and you have to bear in mind I'm an anthropologist, so I've spent a considerable portion of my life learning just what humans are capable of! ;)
Click to expand...
Simply because you asked "Whats the problem?" and I thought, it might be a good idea to actually outline that.

Sparhafoc said:
I don't trust you all either. I don't mean that in a rude way, but I grew up in cities, lived in major metropolitan areas all my life, so I walk past countless thousands of strangers every day - all of which could mean me ill intent. But by and large, the vast majority of people just want what I want - to navigate the human morass as quickly and with as little interaction as possible!

But to benefit from living in a society, one must allow other people to exist in that society, and ideally everyone should enjoy maximal possible freedom.

At that point, you can return to my earlier post which sets out the formulation linking one person's right to X denying another person's right to Y.

A just solution must be achievable; all parties should be able to accommodate each other.
Click to expand...
Not trusting strangers is highly recommended.
As far as freedom goes .. I go by "your freedom ends were my freedom begins" and "human rights trump freedom". The later should be self evident.

Sparhafoc said:
But you've not established that every form of possession of guns necessarily indicates a cost to public safety.

Farmers use guns to shoot rabbits that damage their crops. Department of Health, Forestry, Whatever directly pay people to hunt specific quantities of grazing animals so that the herds can be managed. Sportsman must practice to become good, they have to join gun clubs and shoot at targets, and for there to be future Olympian testaments to humanity's mastery of hand-eye coordination over distances, then less skilled neophytes need access to shooting ranges to hone their skills.

And you have to explain why someone can't go to a gun club and shoot a gun at a target just for fun... why not? Unless you live next door, how the fuck is it harming you? You can't deny other people's freedom in the abstract - you have no standing at all in challenging them because they're not actually harming you. I can offer no reason why you would wish to deny them that freedom, but were you capable of effecting it, I think you would actually materially harm society - albeit in a fairly minor way as we could still use other techniques to manage forests, woodlands, fields.... but we could kiss any chance of a Winter Olympics' gold medal goodbye.
Click to expand...
Depends on if you look at it from a micro or macro perspective.

Sure, one guy having a gun for whatever reason, is highly unlikely to cause someone harm. There is no way to argue against the right for 1 person to have a gun. Problem is, thats from a micro perspective.
Since we are talking public safety, we have to look at it from a macro perspective and thats were statistics come in. 1 person is unlikely to cause harm, 10 are unlikely to cause harm, even with 100 you might get away without incident, but after 1000 people, accidents become a certainty. Depends strongly on the country and the rules and regulations though.

Which is why I do not have a problem with police, military, hunters and maybe sportsmen having guns, but I do have a giant problem with guns in the hands of the general public.
I might sound somewhat idealistic, but not to the point of being completly impractical.

Sparhafoc said:
I don't disagree, but I do think there are many more perfectly justifiable reasons people may want to use guns, and I don't think you or I have any right to stop them.

On the flip side, I think there has been, and can't really be, any rational argument for the proliferation of personal ownership of guns, specifically with regards to those people feeling they need those guns to protect themselves. That's the ethically calamitous component here: not the mere existence of guns.
Click to expand...
For me it comes down to, if the justification outweights the cost to society. And looking at the US, we are talking about a momumental cost in human lives(Even if we only look at mass shootings, which are inarguably only possible thanks to their liberal gun laws).
If we were talking Switzerland or Japan for example, I wouldnt even bother .... guns are simply not a problem there.

Interesting enough, cars are an example for a similiar discussion and the conclusion was that the benefit of mobility outweights the costs of human lives. Now thats a conondrum.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 42253"/>
@Greg the Grouper Pretty sure he will declare me his nemesis ... but well, him I get, after all, we are arguing about shutting down his business ... and selling ice cream is not as sexy as selling guns. Hell, considering the dire straights the US is in, I wouldnt even blame him, if he defended his job to the death.

Reminds me, does anyone know why Kinder can not sell chocolate covered toys in eggs and is liable for everyone that suffocates on one of those, but gun manufacturers and sellers are not liable for anything?
Seems really inconsistent.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
Would you like to keep ignoring everything that's been said? Whilst pretending you aren't?
 
arg-fallbackName="BoganUSAFFLClerk"/>
Greg the Grouper said:
Tell you what. That's quite a few people you've mentioned. I'll let you hash it out with them, and I guess if you wanna talk about this forum in general with me, I'm game. Cool?
Click to expand...
Why move it? We can keep all the U.S. cancer gun laws all in one area.
 
arg-fallbackName="BoganUSAFFLClerk"/>
Dragan Glas said:
"...objections I have to the attachments on the "modern sporting rifle", aka the AR, are a bayonet mount, and a grenade launcher. I see no need for either in a civilian environment."

"...I disagree with bump stocks. Anything that allows you to fire faster than you can do so by pulling the trigger is a step towards full automatic."

"This is similar to distinguishing between someone typing and a DDoS attack."
Click to expand...
Those have been allowed for many years. When was the last time either a knife on the end of a rifle or a grenade launcher was used in a crime? Here even in the U.S.? I cannot think of 1 thing.

I can bump fire any auto loader without a bumpstock or any device that allows for easier bumpfire. You aren't restricting the rate of fire. This a technique not something an item enables.

In this comparison I would be able to DDoS regardless.

Nothing was gained public safety was not increased and the only thing that was accomplished was security theatre and increased cost and complexity in gun ownership.
 
arg-fallbackName="Greg the Grouper"/>
BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
Why move it? We can keep all the U.S. cancer gun laws all in one area.
Click to expand...
1. I don't claim to know much about guns or gun laws. It was never my intention to discuss those topics, beyond possibly a cursory idea of whether or not people should have them, and we are more likely than not to have similar ideas in that regard.

2. I've argued with multiple people before. Even with a written record, it gets hard to keep track of multiple different variations of the same conversation. I'd rather just make things simpler for you.

If you have general questions about this forum, though, I'm happy to try and answer them.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 42253"/>
@BoganUSAFFLClerk I am curious though ... is there anything you are against selling to civilians? Grenade launchers, hard mounted gatling guns, chemical weapons, guns disguised as stuffed animals?
 
arg-fallbackName="BoganUSAFFLClerk"/>
Spanish Inquisition said:
I can run away from a guy with a knife etc. pp.. A guy with a knife etc. pp. cant accidentally shoot me cause he tripped and it is much harder, mentally speaking, to kill someone with a knife etc. pp. then a gun. Nevermind practically.

"...guns are not for killing people, despite the millions over millions of bodies with holes in them saying otherwise."

"Hunters and Sportmen .. sure, but they are professional, big difference to someone doing something just for kicks."
Click to expand...
Interesting. I recently had to draw and hold a knife wielder at gun point and ran around my car. Without my firearm and my car things would be entirely different. I most likely would have been stabbed without a barrier for him to gain distance. Also the handgun was used to make him hesitate which didn't last long. This person I believe wanted to die as he was toothless and tells me he is a hopeless abuser of meth. I was in the total legal right to shoot the attacker and chose not to because getting arrested at roughly 3am and being investigated on top of legal fees is something I don't want on the condition that I had a barrier in between me and him and basically could infinitely run away from him under those conditions. Drove a block away and filed a police report and even the police said nothing is going to be done about it.

No firearms generally are not for killing people even in the U.S. as a majority. The vast majority of the time American gun owners shoot nothing but clay, paper, steel and/or dirt. For your claim to be accurate for a generality like that a majority has to be established. Firearms ownership isn't even related to gun crime proportionally as 39m nics checks last year - record setting - and yet the number of gun homicides haven't increased. The rate of violent crime has increased 3 fold in my city comparing pre to post covid. Economic and Social problems continue what a surprise.

Ah but they are civilian by definition a category someone specifically set apart from the rest which shouldn't own firearms. If any person is going to make that argument then at least be competent in knowing English. I am sorry than American has to set this thread straight in this regard because of our terrible education system as well as my profile pic to boot.
 
arg-fallbackName="BoganUSAFFLClerk"/>
Sparhafoc said:
"When it comes to most of the above, while they could feasibly cause damage - or maybe even death - they're not statistically associated with it as guns are. "

"I think I'd start to worry about what the fuck is happening to the society I live in, and consequently would have some right to say that this is NOT how I want to live."

"...proliferation of guns, the extremely high rate of gun homicide, and a culture that makes a virtue out of possessing guns. It is hard to see it as anything other than dystopian."
Click to expand...
I believe I am missing context but knives, blunt instruments and killings involving a beat down are far more common here compared to where you live. Digest this:
ucr.fbi.gov

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

ucr.fbi.gov
Capture.PNG
Knives, blunt instruments or no weapon at all out paces the use of rifles or shotguns in crime by any one singular category. In other words the things you guy don't like for civilians to own are less likely to be used to kill compared to something that you guys wank with and/or use to prepare food with if you like my somewhat volatile comparison.

Yea but you can scream and be a panty waist all you like just like all the other stupid protestors think anything will change. Politicians will only do what puts them in a positive light immediately as actually solving the problem with crime in America would take much profit and incentive out of being a politician. You'd the rest of the useless people such as BLM, ANTIFA, ACAB and the rest. A lot of good they accomplished. They didn't do shit besides make 2b in damages. Yes how useful and productive these protestors are.

I try my best to supply people with firearms. I am an FFL clerk after all and firearms instructor. As well as a certified range safety officer. Is it a virtue to sit back and not be allowed to defend yourself or is it a virtue to take responsibility in your own defense? Consider also that police have NO DUTY to protect an individual as declared by the Supreme Court. They have no duty to protect YOU. Police response times here for a critical incident are laughably slow. The country is massive and the number of police are thinning not getting better times are worse and many police quit for good reason making the issue of crime WORSE.
 
arg-fallbackName="BoganUSAFFLClerk"/>
Dragan Glas said:
Where would you place America on a scale of "civilized nations"?

Judging by the amount of violence in America - even compared to just other developed nations - it's well down the list.
Click to expand...
Considering the number of problems that follow immigrants into the country from their third world sources I would think it is civilized considering the number of illegals, organized crime, people gaming the system, politicians not actually achieving anything to address this problems in the majority, or generally increasing the social or economic reasons for crime yes the U.S. is very civilized.

Interesting how "developed nations" is always used and that standard conveniently is more in control with the U.K.. That is sort of a conflict of interest isn't it?

Also crime seems to be concentrated in specific areas. If one looks up crime rates by locale in the U.S. the most violent cities make up the most violence for the state. Increases in homicide only mostly reflect the capitol of a state and not the outlying regions. If one were to discount the top 5 in the U.S. prior to Corona our violent crime rate and murder rates would be very similar to the rest of the EU. That repeat business in crime in the same areas even though the authorities know exactly who is committing the crimes and who is committing the same or similar crimes repeatedly is very telling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top