No.4991[View All]
File: 1590018461969.png (256.62 KB, 880x1024, 55:64, gun.png) ImgOps Google
There's sorta a gun debate going in another thread, but not something I feel is appropriate for me to join as it started somewhere else.
In America, there seem to be two main groups, one favoring gun control -- bringing down the number of guns, basically; one that believes the greater quantity and quality of weapons per citizen -- especially per well trained, law-abiding citizen -- the better the society. And I think most of us have seen sparks fly as the groups head off.
A question that comes to my mind: are there shared values between these two groups (values related to weapons and the debate, for those who like things spelled out)? I know, for example, reducing gun deaths is not a shared value -- some deaths are seen as justified and many would say reducing gun deaths (by bad people) simply means an increase in death by other means. So that's not the metric. Is there one?
236 posts and 43 image replies omitted. Click reply to view. No.5243
>>5241Do you think that's drunk driving is inevitable and impossible to stop?
Surely if we had no alcohol, we would have no drunk drivers
No.5244
>>5241You keep ignoring the point that the difference between AR15-style weapons and traditional hunting rifles is like the difference in paint jobs on cars. Banning AR-15s makes as little sense as banning red automotive paint in the hypothetical I posed in
>>4948.
No.5245
>>5243>>5242Banning alcohol is a different debate. I'd be OK with that because I don't drink. But it's still you derailing the conversation.
Taking away cars takes away their primary usage of transportation as well. Guns don't have a primary use outside of killing that regulating them would hinder. Do you actually have any real arguments to defend why people need AR-15s that doesn't hinge on other things technically being deadly? Because it feels dishonest for you to keep bringing that up like you don't understand cars have a use outside of killing.
No.5248
>>5245>Guns don't have a primary use outside of killingSo? Sometimes you
need to kill to preserve your life.
No.5249
>>5247Note that post
>>5242 mentioned restricting cars to speeds less than 35mph. That is different than completely banning cars.
No.5251
>>5247>We are talking about regulating guns and people keep bringing up cars and alcohol like they have anything to do with this conversation.It is demonstrate a flaw in the form of the argument for banning AR-15s. Like this:
1. If the form of argument
A supports banning AR-15s, then the form of argument
A also supports banning alcohol.
2. Banning alcohol is absurd.
3. Therefore argument
A is flawed.
No.5252
File: 1590548225319.jpg (328.8 KB, 1278x1025, 1278:1025, 1466248520331.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5250>How many people have you killed to preserve your life?Zero, by the grace of God. And hopefully it will continue to be zero. But I am lucky to live in a nice neighborhood with low crime. Other people are not so fortunate and have a much greater risk of needing to use deadly force against a home invader.
No.5253
>>5245Then why not advocate the banning of alcohol, giving that it kills far more people.
this is my problem here. You seem to be putting a lot of effort into guns, but none at all into alcohol.
It's almost like the deaths don't actually matter to you.
>Do you actually have any real arguments to defend why people need AR-15s that doesn't hinge on other things technically being deadly?Sure. It's not the bill of needs.
I don't "need" freedom. People can survive without it. I don't need the right to free speech. I don't need the right to do as I wish with my property. I don't need the right to go where I please.
A slave can have what he needs to survive, but not his liberty.
There are plenty of other firearm that do what an AR-15 does. I could always get one of those. Especially since near as I can tell what you propose will leave those arms intact.
I could always use one of them for what I need. I rather doubt you care about the mini 14, for instance, so for the threat of multiple assailants, there is always that.
The question is ultimately wine should I have to. I don't believe it will save anybody's lives.
No.5255
>>5252Should not someone use less-than-lethal force and/or try to de-escalate the situation before resulting in killing someone? To not do so demonstrates a lack of value for human life.
>>5251Completely banning alcohol is absurd. Regulating it clearly isn't, as it is already being regulated. Further regulating it past the point where it is now but before outright banning it is also not absurd up to a certain point, wherever that point lies.
Therefore regulating AR-15s is not absurd.
No.5258
>>5255Have to? No. Should? personally I would argue no, as I do not think you have a moral obligation to that person at all, if they've put you in a position where you have that question. there is absolutely no reason for you to risk your life for the sake of your attacker.
If it comes at absolutely no consequence to you, maybe. But, I done is the surest fire way to end a threat.
It's more reliable by far.
As to the question of the value of human life?
I consider a victims life more important than an attacker's.
No.5259
>>5253>Sure. It's not the bill of needs.Its also not the bill of unchanging laws of nature.
It was once legal in this country for someone to own me as property. That was changed. I see no reason why this can't also be modified to protect people. Machine guns did not exist when the bill of rights was written.
>>5257it very much does. if you want to know a number I can give you a a list of all the mass shooting casualties of the last decade.
No.5262
File: 1590550010539.jpg (57.55 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 4xt02ysrv0jk.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5255>Should not someone use less-than-lethal force and/or try to de-escalate the situation before resulting in killing someone? If I detect someone trying to break down my door, I'll try to de-escalate by issuing a verbal warning to leave immediately. If they ignore my attempt to de-escalate, I'll shoot to stop the threat if they break down my door. There is no equally effective less-than-lethal that I can use.
No.5263
>>5259That is not entirely true. There were more than a few firearms up which were capable of such, they were usually just artillery pieces.
given their presents however, I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to down that the founding fathers considered that possibility. After all, it seems like a straightforward development in technology.
They were not stupid people.
It seems to me they thought of that.
As for slavery, again I would remind you of the utility that minorities found through arms.
when the law would not protect them, or worse would stand directly against them, arms became necessary.
I am not so hopeful in this world to think that won't be true again. Nor do I have that kind of faith in government.
No.5264
>>5259>it very much does. if you want to know a number I can give you a a list of all the mass shooting casualties of the last decade.Irrelevant. My hobby is not Mass murder.
I have not killed anyone.
My hobby of shooting paper Targets hasn't killed anyone either
No.5265
File: 1590550202993.jpg (153.52 KB, 1200x800, 3:2, 1nbg66quldpc.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5255>Therefore regulating AR-15s is not absurd.OK, but we
already regulate AR-15s. You need to fill out ATF Form 4473 and pass the NICS background check to buy one. If you want universal background checks even for private sales, I won't argue against that
as long as it isn't overly burdensome. (And yes, it is simple to make it non-burdensome.)
No.5266
>>5260yes, I do consider the life of a murderer to be of significantly less her value then the life of their victim.
I do not think that is a far-fetched morality, nor do I think that it is one not shared by most people
No.5267
>>5261>OP has been solved. Ruducing gun deaths is NOT a shared value here.That was already stated in the OP! See
>>4991:
>I know, for example, reducing gun deaths is not a shared value -- some deaths are seen as justified No.5268
>>5265Personally, at this point, I won't accept anything unless there's a compromise. And by that I mean, we get something in return.
Remove the NFA for example.
No.5269
File: 1590550657120.png (60.26 KB, 876x319, 876:319, sbr.png) ImgOps Google
>>5268>Remove the NFA for example.The absurd restrictions on SBRs and SBSes should be the first to go. Completely pointless law now. I wonder if Beautiful Butterfly / Attractive Crow would agree to this trade.
No.5270
File: 1590551189193.png (122.95 KB, 859x500, 859:500, maxim-9.png) ImgOps Google
>>5269And also suppressors. The law against suppressors is retarded. This pistol is 135-139 dB, louder than police sirens, jackhammers, chainsaws, etc. There is no reason it should be illegal without going thru the NFA bullshit. Maybe even the Supreme Court will strike down the law against suppressors if Congress doesn't.
No.5271
>>5266> I do consider the life of a murderer to be of significantly less her value then the life of their victim.We aren't talking about a murderer, at the point where we are talking about ending his life, he has not killed anyone that you are aware of.
Also, you are wrong to assume that everyone thinks that any life can be devalued by any action.
>>5265If the majority of mass shootings are committed using legally-acquired guns, then it's clear the current regulations are not enough.
No.5274
>>5271I do not draw moral distinction between a murderer, and someone trying to murder.
They are moral equivalent to me.
>Also, you are wrong to assume that everyone thinks that any life can be devalued by any action. I do not believe that's true, given the simple fact that most people are not pacifists.
No.5275
File: 1590568034613.jpg (149.42 KB, 863x874, 863:874, nGmGqIn.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5273>Other countries successfully lessen mass shootings by regulating guns. [citation needed in regards to causation]
Also, I'd much rather live as a free man and risk the very small chance of dying in a mass shooting than to betray the principles of freedom and liberty that our ancestors fought and died for.
No.5276
File: 1590570657818.png (298.56 KB, 716x609, 716:609, 233677.png) ImgOps Google
>>5273Also, what do you think of the compromise suggested in
>>5268? The only reasonable gun-control law you suggested in this thread was universal background checks. So, what existing gun-control laws would you give up in exchange for that? How about deregulating SBRs and suppressors?
No.5277
>>5274>I do not draw moral distinction between a murderer, and someone trying to murder.Which means you are willing to devalue someone's life before they've even done anything.
>>5275>Also, I'd much rather live as a free man and risk the very small chance of dying in a mass shooting tthat's a very selfish way of looking at it and it shows a complete disregard for the lives of other people.
No.5278
File: 1590598823021.jpg (10.8 KB, 333x250, 333:250, 1475642863128.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5277>that's a very selfish way of looking at it and it shows a complete disregard for the lives of other people.Huh? It's not like I'm taking all the freedom and dumping the shooting deaths on other people. Everybody shares in the freedom and also shares in risk of mass shootings. So, it's not selfish at all.
No.5279
File: 1590599102736.jpg (235.09 KB, 500x500, 1:1, kitten-with-yarn.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5277>Which means you are willing to devalue someone's life before they've even done anything.Attempted murder is a crime. It's not nothing.
No.5280
>>5278You spoke exclusively of yourself in that last post. You said that you valued "freedom" (which I assume you mean the freedom to own deadly weapons) over the "low" risk of dying in a mass shooting. You are putting your right to own something over the lives of other people because you feel you personally are at a low risk. It's a completely selfish attitude and it shows you care more about your right to own guns than other people's right to live.
>>5279Is this why you're so keen on finding Treyvon Martin at fault? So you can more easily devalue his life?
No.5281
File: 1590601830941.jpg (174.33 KB, 1180x787, 1180:787, 1584217406964.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5280>because you feel you personally are at a low risk. Ah, OK, I see where the miscommunication was. When I said "low risk", I didn't mean that I personally am at particularly low risk. I mean that the probability of an average person dying in a mass shooting is very low, much lower than the probability of dying in a car crash.
Let me restate my position in utilitarian ethical terms: The aggregate utility of a society with both freedom and mass shootings is greater than the aggregate utility of a society that prevents mass shootings by stifling freedom,
ceteris paribus.
Also, I think you missed
>>5276.
No.5282
>>5280>Is this why you're so keen on finding Treyvon Martin at fault? So you can more easily devalue his life?That chain of causality is a bit out of whack. I tried to evaluate the evidence as objectively as possible, and my conclusion was that Trayvon
more-likely-than-not violently attacked Zimmerman.
No.5283
>>5282But in your opinion, if Treyvon DID in fact initiate a violent confrontation with this stranger trailing him for no reason, then his life no longer has value in your eyes? He as gone from innocent to "attacker" and thus someone is within their rights to end his life?
>>5281How unlikely it is to get killed in a shooting shouldn't matter. With a population this big, even the killing of 100 people is statistically speaking, small. But we should not calculate the value of people's lives based on statistics. Mass shootings can be prevented, and so there's no reason why we should not prevent them.
>Also, I think you missed >>5276.I am against removing any current regulations on guns. I am all for instating more. That should be clear.
No.5284
File: 1590611813490.jpg (401.01 KB, 1052x1402, 526:701, 9tp5mj11i58g.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5283>But in your opinion, if Treyvon DID in fact initiate a violent confrontation with this stranger trailing him for no reason, then his life no longer has value in your eyes? His life still has value. It is sad and unfortunate that he had to die. But it would be worse to prevent Zimmerman from defending himself against death or serious bodily injury from a criminal attack.
>>5283>How unlikely it is to get killed in a shooting shouldn't matter.Huh? That makes no sense at all. You need to multiply the expected utility of an event by its probability of occurring. Would you pay $150/year for flood insurance if your local area has never flooded in recorded history?
>But we should not calculate the value of people's lives based on statistics.But to calculate the expected loss due to a mass shooting, you
do need statistics. You multiply the value of their lives by the probability of them dying.
No.5285
File: 1590612188560.jpg (203.62 KB, 1920x1018, 960:509, gjnxfnxfnjxfj.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5283>I am against removing any current regulations on guns. Even if that's the only way to enact new regulations like universal background checks? Do you really think that the gun on the left (which differs from the one on the right only by having a stock instead of an arm brace) should be more restricted than the gun on the right? It doesn't make any sense to me. Do you really think that imposing a $200 tax stamp on SBRs is more important than universal background checks?
No.5286
>>5277There's a difference between killing someone because "He might murder one day" and killing someone running at you with a knife.
>that's a very selfish way of looking at it and it shows a complete disregard for the lives of other people.We all benefit from freedom.
No.5287
File: 1590613037542.jpg (1.37 MB, 1869x3900, 623:1300, IMG_0679.JPG) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5280>Is this why you're so keen on finding Treyvon Martin at fault? So you can more easily devalue his life?The facts of the case seem to very much suggest it was self defense.
This goes beyond our typical standard for determining that, as we presume innocence.
The information at hand in regards to that case makes it look pretty heavily like Trayvon initiated the violent confrontation, as evidenced by Zimmerman's injuries.
Why are you so keen on finding Zimmerman at fault? Is it purely because of his race?
No.5288
>>5283>But in your opinion, if Treyvon DID in fact initiate a violent confrontation with this stranger trailing him for no reason, then his life no longer has value in your eyes? I'd describe it as "His life has lesser value than that person he violently attacked".
Or, really, if you want to take the NAP type point of perspective, his actions disregarded the rights of others, so his own rights are consequently forfeit.
There's a difference between saying "no value" and "lesser value".
Though, personally, I tend to go around the route of actions anyway. Value to life is a vague and unquantifiable concept, and so I find it largely worthless as it pertains to moral considerations. A binary look on actions as immoral or moral is better, to me.
>Mass shootings can be prevented, and so there's no reason why we should not prevent them. Drunk drivings kill far more people. They can be prevented. There's "no reason" why we should not prevent them.
Why are you not an advocate of restrictions on alcohol? Why do you target guns with such vigor, while completely ignoring the dangers of alcohol that kill far more people?
It makes you look hypocritical.
No.5300
>>5287Zimmerman's race is disputed. Again, it is uncivil to keep accusing me of racism when I have not done so to you.
>>5286You're only framing it as "freedom" because it benefits your narrative. We aren't allowed to buy plutonium, but somehow that isn't infringing on your "freedom".
>>5284The fact you dont' afford Martin the same benefit of the doubt is troubling, but I think the issue is here. You say
>His life still has value.But this person says
>>5288>"His life has lesser value than that person he attacked".I think this is the core issue of the gun debate. For some people, life ALWAYS has value. No matter what a person has done. For others the value of one's life can be taken away or dimminished. For those that always value life, a gun has no value. One should always try to de-escalate a sitation and prevent life from being lost, using a deadly weapon is a last resort, when all other options have been exhausted.
For those who believe that life can be devalued, then as soon as they do an action that devalues their life, the best course of action is to end that less-valuable life.
A gun is the absolute best tool to end less valuable lives. To prevent them from owning as many guns as possible prevents them from doing what they feel is the best option to deal with someone with a less-valuable life. This is why the two sides cannot compromise or meet in the middle. We hold completely opposite values on life itself.
No.5306
File: 1590801434687.gif (1023.29 KB, 227x240, 227:240, 1425106784199.gif) ImgOps Google
>>5300>The fact you dont' afford Martin the same benefit of the doubt is troubling,I'm not sure what that is in reference to?
>For those that always value life, a gun has no value. Huh? That's not true at all! Lots of people enjoy shooting paper targets and soda bottles at the range! And not all lives have equal value. Most people would agree that the life of a deer is worth less than the life of a human. And if you eat meat, then you're in no moral position to condemn hunting. And if a violent home invader is about to kill or rape your children, then obviously you should protect your family even if you need to kill the home invader.
>For those who believe that life can be devalued, then as soon as they do an action that devalues their life, the best course of action is to end that less-valuable life. Nani??? That doesn't make any sense at all! My stock portfolio lost a lot of value this year -- but did I end my portfolio as soon as it became devalued? No!
>We hold completely opposite values on life itself.I'm not so sure about that. We might differ mainly in what system of ethics we follow (e.g., consequentialism, deontology, etc.) and its details rather than in axiology.
No.5312
>>5300While his race is disputed, he's most certainly not black.
>You're only framing it as "freedom" because it benefits your narrative. We aren't allowed to buy plutonium, but somehow that isn't infringing on your "freedom".So long as you are able to store it safely without risk to those around you, I think you ought to be.
You can buy uranium ore, and similar samples as I recall.
http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=2_4But, yeah, I would consider that an infringement, if I'm not hurting anyone with it.
>. For some people, life ALWAYS has value. No matter what a person has done.Most people are not pacifists. For good reason. Pacifism is an inherently flawed ideology.
>For those that always value life, a gun has no value.I'd still have my firearms regardless of my value in life, as the mechanics of them are interesting, and the shooting of them is fun. So, I don't really buy that.
>One should always try to de-escalate a sitation and prevent life from being lost, using a deadly weapon is a last resort, when all other options have been exhausted.Where possible, maybe. But, putting your life at risk for the sake of a murderer's life is stupid.
>For those who believe that life can be devalued, then as soon as they do an action that devalues their life, the best course of action is to end that less-valuable life. That's nonsense.
If I've got a 100$ bar of gold, should I throw it out as soon as it drops to only 99$?
Of course not.
>A gun is the absolute best tool to end less valuable livesNo. A bomb is. Or fire, fire works really well too.
>To prevent them from owning as many guns as possible prevents them from doing what they feel is the best option to deal with someone with a less-valuable lifeYou don't need a ton of guns for that.
>We hold completely opposite values on life itself.Maybe
you do, but I rather doubt this is exactly commonplace for a viewpoint.
