Charlie Kirk shot dead at Utah university

Jim Tolmie's Underpants said:
While automobiles are a societal necessity for mobility, dismissing guns as non-essential overlooks their role in self-defense & cultural significance, with studies like the National Crime Victimization Survey estimating 100,000–370,000 defensive uses annually. I'd say that the ability to be able to defend yourself with a firearm against an attacker who'd otherwise harm you is pretty 'essential"!

Car deaths, like gun deaths, are unintended consequences of widespread use. Both are side effects of tools with potential for harm.

Your death-to-usage ratio comparison is misleading without context: cars have a far higher usage rate (over 90% of U.S. households own one) versus guns (about 32%), skewing raw numbers.

On self-defence: while accidental shootings occur (around 500 annually per the CDC), justifiable homicides are rare but not negligible (under 1,000 per the FBI), & the risk-benefit debate hinges on training & regulation, not inherent equivalence.

My argument isn’t false equivalence - it’s a questioning of consistent safety standards & not a bad faith argument.
Click to expand...
Do you like weapons? Part of my job, but I’d have them nowhere near my family.

In your home, who are you worried about?
 
TinFoilHat said:
He's a old school journalist who is trained in being able to think critically.

A skill many of us, including myself could improve on when arguments now seem to be about our beliefs and perceptions of reality trumping hard factual evidence. Even when we see it with our eyes. Our belief system then goes into denial and we find a way to deny it and embolden our own selfish belief systems.

The joys of the internet and social media.

Pushing us more into our own little tribal boxes where we are always right and anyone that challenges us is always wrong.

I'm starting to think the human race will become extinct because of stupidity.
Click to expand...
Bot*.

*Nearly as bad as being called a Rag ;-)
 
bluethrunthru said:
Right its a crime scene - there was a murder in the town where I live 2 years ago. A street was shut off for two days even though the death was inside a premises and there were forensics in white suits going up the street on hands and knees looking for any evidence. Right after the body was rushed off to hospital a guy was able to walk up to the table and pass out MAGA hat merch then this happened. Its so fucking amateurish OR they don't care because they know the back story and are just cleaning up after themselves

Click to expand...


1000057551.gif
 
Jim Tolmie's Underpants said:
"Because of the power they have to harm their target. That’s their ONE AND ONLY purpose for existence."


This is a mischaracterization of purpose. The claim that the "ONE AND ONLY purpose" of firearms is to harm or destroy is an oversimplification which I have had to point out numerous times to various posters promoting the same illogical fallacy.
Click to expand...
Just fyi, it’s not an illogical fallacy, and you have failed in your attempt to prove it so. You are ascribing a non-utilitarian purpose to the good. I am not. The specific utilitarian design of the product is to harm its target. That the threat/danger of the product acting as it was intended is a secondary benefit that informs the product’s additional uses. They all stem from the purpose of the product: to harm the target.
Jim Tolmie's Underpants said:
Firearms serve MULTIPLE purposes beyond destruction, including self-defense, sport, hunting, a& historical preservation. This narrow focus ignores the broader utility and cultural significance of firearms. If the primary purpose of a firearm is destruction, how do you account for its use in competitive sports like skeet shooting or target practice, where the goal is precision and skill rather than harm?
Click to expand...
I account for it in that to win a skeet shooting competition you have to hit the clay pigeon. Which — remarkably — harms it. In your other example, I have to hit a paper bullseye which puts this little thing we Americans refer to as a “hole” in the target, thereby harming it. Conversely, the way it works is, if you don’t hit the target, you don’t shatter the pigeon or put the hole in the area intended which means you don’t harm the paper bullseye. I didn’t think this was very complicated but I guess it is more so than I anticipated.
Jim Tolmie's Underpants said:
Your argument that the power of firearms as defensive tools lies solely in their destructive capability overlooks other factors, such as deterrence & the psychological impact of their presence. The mere possession of a firearm can deter potential attackers without any shots being fired. If the defensive power of a firearm is solely due to its destructive capability, how do you explain instances where the mere display of a firearm prevents an attack without any harm being inflicted?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t overlook it at all. You appear in my view to be taking what I wrote, restating it, and then somehow disagreeing with it. Everything you wrote above is true. But let’s use an example. Let’s say I tried to deter a criminal with a gun that the criminal knew was inoperable. Would it deter him? No. Why? Because the defensive properties of the gun are a function of the threat of harm. Again — it seems simply bizarre to me that I need to explain this. The threat of a gun working as it is designed to work is WHY it is an effective defensive tool.
Jim Tolmie's Underpants said:
Your comparison of firearms to hammers or other household items is a false equivalence. While a hammer can be used for multiple purposes (like construction or repair), firearms are designed with specific functions in mind, but this does not negate their defensive utility. Moreover, many tools, including knives & vehicles, can be used destructively, yet they are not regulated to the same extent as firearms. If firearms should be regulated aggressively due to their destructive potential, why are other potentially dangerous tools, such as knives or vehicles, not subject to similar levels of regulation, despite their capability to cause harm?
Click to expand...
Because these tools are designed for a far broader set of utilitarian uses than guns. I’ve never tried to cut a steak or dice a carrot with a .45. I’ve never attempted to drive to work in my Sherman tank. I suppose I could try, but I think there are other tools fit for purpose. Now certainly other tools can be used as weapons to inflict harm. But because we use them for other things — I.e. they generate a broader set of social benefits — the regulations surrounding them differ.
Jim Tolmie's Underpants said:
Your argument for "aggressive, radical regulation" conflicts with the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to keep & also bear arms. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that this right is fundamental & subject to certain limitations, but not to the extent of rendering it meaningless. If firearms are to be regulated to the "absolute hilt" as you believe, how do you reconcile this with the Supreme Court's rulings, such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) & New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which affirm an individual's right to possess firearms for self-defence?
Click to expand...
I’m not familiar enough with those cases, but my point in bringing up the nuclear missile silo (I could have said hand grenade or flamethrower or something else) is to simply point out that the term “arms” has already had a line drawn under it somewhere. Where the line is or should be is up for debate. What isn’t up for debate is that the words “to keep and bear arms” is in 2A. But the word “infringe” is a tougher one. Let’s say I can’t afford a gun. Is my right to keep and bear one being infringed? Shouldn’t the government manufacture and provide them for free then if it is and I want one? Point is, this is what courts are for — to interpret the law — and whatever my view is, and whatever those cases say, I would abide by them. My view on regulation is based on the uniqueness of the good in question and very well may run afoul of 2A, and/or I may think 2A should be amended in some way. So the fuck what? Lots of people think laws should be changed.
Jim Tolmie's Underpants said:
Your claim also ignores the historical context of the Second Amendment, which was designed to ensure a citizen's ability to defend themselves against tyranny & personal threats. This right has been upheld as a cornerstone of American liberty. Given the historical intent of the Second Amendment to protect individual liberty & self-defense, how can you justify regulations that might effectively nullify this right, especially when other constitutional rights are not subject to such stringent limitations?
Click to expand...
This seems a step too far given that we are not discussing the specifics of the regulations I would think should be considered (Mandatory firearms training/licensing? Random house inspections of gun owners? Greatly increased limits on types of arms? Much higher taxes? It’s a random sample — not endorsing or rejecting any of these so don’t go down the path of thinking I am) but I will reiterate that writ large there have already been plenty of infringements of the term “arms”.
Jim Tolmie's Underpants said:
Your assertion that no other product offers the same "social good/social ill trade-off" as firearms is debatable. Many products, such as alcohol, prescription drugs & even social media, have significant social ills but are not regulated to the extent proposed for firearms. The social good of firearms, including self-defense & personal security, must be weighed against their potential for harm. If the social ill of firearms justifies aggressive regulation, why are other products with comparable or greater social ills, such as alcohol (which contributes to thousands of deaths annually), not regulated to the same degree?
Click to expand...
Your suggestion that alcohol is a comparable or greater social ill is a lot more debatable IMO but I think the answer is that the social good side of the ledger has more tally marks for those things than guns do and guns have more on the social ill side than those things do. Maybe the right way to think about it is that guns are heavily barbell-weighted on the spectrum, given the benefits of self-defenc(s)e vs. harm. But this is what brings me back to the original point: what is the utilitarian design of the product intended to do? Guns: harm their target. With alcohol and prescription drugs that is not the utilitarian design — harm is an outcome of misuse of the product though of course.
Jim Tolmie's Underpants said:
Comparing firearms to nuclear missile silos is a false analogy. Nuclear weapons are instruments of mass destruction with no practical defensive use for individuals, whereas firearms are tools for personal defence & other legitimate purposes. The scale & context of these weapons are vastly different. Since nuclear missile silos aren't comparable to personal firearms in terms of scale, purpose & individual use, how does your analogy support the argument for regulating firearms to the same extent as weapons of mass destruction?
Click to expand...
It is indeed false and as noted was hyperbole for effect. Where we draw the line between personal defenc(s)e and “weapons of war” uncovered by 2A continues to be a point of contention which I’d say we need better guidance from gun experts here or elsewhere on.
Jim Tolmie's Underpants said:
There's also plenty of empirical evidence which suggests that stringent gun regulations don't always correlate with lower rates of gun violence. Countries with strict gun laws, such as Brazil & Mexico, still experience high levels of gun-related crime, while others with more lenient laws, like Switzerland, have low rates of gun violence.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Also not really relevant to any point either of us made.
Jim Tolmie's Underpants said:
If aggressive regulation is the solution, why do countries with strict gun laws still experience high rates of gun violence - & conversely - why do some countries with more lenient laws have low rates of gun violence?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. Why do some countries with strict gun laws experience low rates of gun violence and conversely some countries with more lenient laws have high rates of gun violence?

It’s a shame you ended on such a note (questions right out of Wichita, Kansas one might say — an ironic reference with which I am sure you are familiar) but after dealing with reporters for 25 years (albeit certainly not on the topic of guns!) I know I’m gonna get those every once in a while.
 
Last edited:
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Just fyi, it’s not an illogical fallacy, and you have failed in your attempt to prove it so. You are ascribing a non-utilitarian purpose to the good. I am not. The specific utilitarian design of the product is to harm its target. That the threat/danger of the product acting as it was intended is a secondary benefit that informs the product’s additional uses. They all stem from the purpose of the product: to harm the target.

I account for it in that to win a skeet shooting competition you have to hit the clay pigeon. Which — remarkably — harms it. In your other example, I have to hit a paper bullseye which puts this little thing we Americans refer to as a “hole” in the target, thereby harming it. Conversely, the way it works is, if you don’t hit the target, you don’t shatter the pigeon or put the hole in the area intended which means you don’t harm the paper bullseye. I didn’t think this was very complicated but I guess it is more so than I anticipated.

It doesn’t overlook it at all. You appear in my view to be taking what I wrote, restating it, and then somehow disagreeing with it. Everything you wrote above is true. But let’s use an example. Let’s say I tried to deter a criminal with a gun that the criminal knew was inoperable. Would it deter him? No. Why? Because the defensive properties of the gun are a function of the threat of harm. Again — it seems simply bizarre to me that I need to explain this. The threat of a gun working as it is designed to work is WHY it is an effective defensive tool.

Because these tools are designed for a far broader set of utilitarian uses than guns. I’ve never tried to cut a steak or dice a carrot with a .45. I’ve never attempted to drive to work in my Sherman tank. I suppose I could try, but I think there are other tools fit for purpose. Now certainly other tools can be used as weapons to inflict harm. But because we use them for other things — I.e. they generate a broader set of social benefits — the regulations surrounding them differ.

I’m not familiar enough with those cases, but my point in bringing up the nuclear missile silo (I could have said hand grenade or flamethrower or something else) is to simply point out that the term “arms” has already had a line drawn under it somewhere. Where the line is or should be is up for debate. What isn’t up for debate is that the words “to keep and bear arms” is in 2A. But the word “infringe” is a tougher one. Let’s say I can’t afford a gun. Is my right to keep and bear one being infringed? Shouldn’t the government manufacture and provide them for free then if it is and I want one? Point is, this is what courts are for — to interpret the law — and whatever my view is, and whatever those cases say, I would abide by them. My view on regulation is based on the uniqueness of the good in question and very well may run afoul of 2A, and/or I may think 2A should be amended in some way. So the fuck what? Lots of people think laws should be changed.

This seems a step too far given that we are not discussing the specifics of the regulations I would think should be considered (Mandatory firearms training/licensing? Random house inspections of gun owners? Greatly increased limits on types of arms? Much higher taxes? It’s a random sample — not endorsing or rejecting any of these so don’t go down the path of thinking I am) but I will reiterate that writ large there have already been plenty of infringements of the term “arms”

Your suggestion that alcohol is a comparable or greater social ill is a lot more debatable IMO but I think the answer is that the social good side of the ledger has more tally marks for those things than guns do.

It is indeed false and as noted was hyperbole for effect. Where we draw the line between personal defenc(s)e and “weapons of war” uncovered by 2A continues to be a point of contention which I’d say we need better guidance from gun experts here or elsewhere on.

Fair enough. Also not really relevant to any point either of us made.

I don’t know. Why do some countries with strict gun laws experience low rates of gun violence and conversely some countries with more lenient laws have high rates of gun violence?

It’s a shame you ended on such a chickenshit note (right out of Wichita, Kansas one might say) but after dealing with reporters for 25 years (albeit certainly not on the topic of guns!) I know I’m gonna get those every once in a while.
Click to expand...
WTF!

Ps. Click the thread, you’ll understand ;-)
 
Nothing makes sense. And you all consume it, quite a lot. Social media and the internet is fucking everyone up. Printing press all over again, wars next. No stopping it, There's a enough anger that people want it.
 
Last edited:
SWP's back said:
See above.

Also read your first three words, which are totally ignored by 2A loons.
Click to expand...
Back then, the term meant something different than we think it means today.

And, I’m actually on your side on most of this, but language is important, because it’s the whole ball game when it comes to 2A and guns.
 
blueish swede said:
It's not he second amendment that is the problem, it only allows for the defence of the state. It is the "reconstruction amendments" (14-16?) that came in after the civil war that expanded the rights of gun use to self-defence and defence of property (the Confederate South were terrified that the freed slaves would slaughter them). These same amendments also ban slavery, so no-one is going to mess with them.

It is unlikely that in this case, any realistic gun restrictions would have prevented the suspect from possessing a hunting rifle, in any case.
Click to expand...
2A is not about the defence of the state, but defence FROM the state. Common, but important, error.
 
Not quite sure why the BBC is continuing to emphasize this over every other new story.

Obviously the right in the US are making a meal out if it. But that's their job
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top