It's not the guns

[Cheerful Charlie]

Guns do not sho0t themsel;ves. Culture produces peole who pull th triiggers.

A few weeks ago two Seattle police off8cers spent 90 minutes talking to a group of us in out r building and answring q8etions.

As one officer pit it gun play is as likely to break out in an upscale club as in a dve bar, it is across demographics.

Blamng it on availability of guns s simplistic and if nothing else is unscientific and emotional.

The reporting of increasing obesity, mental health problems, and addiction of kids points to a fundamentally unhealthy culture.

I don't have cable or net TV, but the broadcast channels I get are awash in gun violence coupled withagressive music, manhood, and sex. Powerful images for young men.

In movies and 50s 60s TV gun vciolence was required to have a moral context. Our broad interpretation of the 1st Amendment got rid of that. Entertainment presenting dysfunctional, antisocial, and violent behavior will impact culture.

I have no idea who is who im modern pop cu relationship lrure but what I do see in the news is riddled with stories of mental health problems. The Johney Dep story is one of a dysfunctional relationship cpiled with drugs, alchohol, and abuse. These kinds of public figures are cultural heroes. Curt Cobain blew his head off, yet is a pop culture icon. Dysfunctional behavior is now normalized.

We are reaping what we sow.

This year in Texas, our brilliant governor Abbott slashed $117 million from the Texas budget for mental health. And changed gun laws so no Texan has to have a license to carry a gun. I think I see our problem here. We have a bright future before us.

After the Uvalde shooting, Abbott gve a purty speech telling Texans we have to do more to deal with the mental health issues causing mass shootings. Really!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

New York bodega worker’s murder charge sparks self-defense debate
Exclusive: Hamilton Heights bodega clerk arrested for murder says he acted in self-defense during last week's incident
Calls Grow for Manhattan DA to Drop Murder Charge in Bodega ‘Self-Defense' Stabbing

TL;DR summary: Thug threatens small business owner. Small business owner stabs thug in self defense, killing thug. DA who believes in no cash bail and letting violent offenders out until trial imposes $250,000 bail, later lowered to $50,000 due to public outcry.

Those who support stricter controls on firearms like to say it is all about public safety. It isn't. This guy used a knife to defend himself, and is facing felony charges.

It is about self defense, always has been and always will be. Guns are just more effective in self defense than most other tools a person might use. This is far more clear cut than any of the other incidents to date. Yes, Rittenhouse crossed state lines. That's why this is more clear cut.

This seems like a non sequitur as I read it. It doesn’t make the case for gun non-control.

My take:

The knife guy should not be facing charges
and
He proved that people don’t need guns for self defense.

One person read the news story.

My take: it is about self defense, not guns. Guns are just the first target in the war on self defense.

My evidence is that a DA who lets violent criminals out on zero cash bail decided this guy was so dangerous that he needed a quarter of a million for bail. His crime? Self defense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This argument appears to assume that if the U.S. were to enact strict firearm controls then the murder rate would drop to Australian levels.

It might not, but surely it would be worth a try?

There is an inverse correlation between gun ownership and the murder rate in the US.

Have you controlled for confounding factors? The obvious big one is city vs. rural.

There probably are--but the point is that it's not a simple relationship.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This seems like a non sequitur as I read it. It doesn’t make the case for gun non-control.

My take:

The knife guy should not be facing charges
and
He proved that people don’t need guns for self defense.

One case of successful self-defense doesn't prove people don't need guns for self-defense.

(And I have no doubt he was defending himself. However, I'm not sure deadly force was justified at that point and the video cuts off--we don't know if he continued to attack past the point there was any threat.)

 

[Hermit]

Had I argued that "if the U.S. were to enact strict firearm controls then the murder rate would drop to Australian levels" I would have said as much.

Didn't say you argued it; said you assumed it in your argument. Not the same thing.

WTF?

Your insistence that I assumed "if the U.S. were to enact strict firearm controls then the murder rate would drop to Australian levels" is an injection of your own making.

Is this a difficult concept? Consider Pascal's Wager. Pascal argues that belief is a game-theoretic strategy with a higher expected payoff than disbelief. He doesn't argue that if there's a God then He must prefer theists to atheists in Heaven; Pascal just takes that for granted as an unstated premise.

Firstly, Blaise Pascal's wager starts with

God is, or He is not. ... Reason can decide nothing here.

So, this premiss is explicitly stated: We cannot know whether God exists or not.

Secondly, In the post you are arguing about, neither

If the murder rate in the US had been the same as Australia's 15,876 of the murdered people would have remained alive.

nor

Saving 303 lives at the expense of 15,876 others for the sake of lax firearm controls is a pisspoor deal.

goes anywhere near the purported assumption that

...if the U.S. were to enact strict firearm controls then the murder rate would drop to Australian levels.

You have just injected it into my post.

Thirdly, after you did that I have explicitly rejected the possibility of implementing Aussie style gun controls here:

I regard implementing Aussie style firearms controls in the US as an impossibility.

But if persisting to inject a premiss into my post is the hill you choose to die on, be my guest. This exchange bores me now. Feel free to play on without me.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Although people keep bringing up Australia as an example to emulate, is Australia trying to ban self-defense as a concept?

The news articles nobody (except one) is commenting on show that what the US is going through is actually a war on self-defense, with guns as merely one of the targets in that war.

 

[Bomb#20]

Consider Pascal's Wager. Pascal argues that belief is a game-theoretic strategy with a higher expected payoff than disbelief. He doesn't argue that if there's a God then He must prefer theists to atheists in Heaven; Pascal just takes that for granted as an unstated premise.

Firstly, Blaise Pascal's wager starts with

God is, or He is not. ... Reason can decide nothing here.

So, this premiss is explicitly stated: We cannot know whether God exists or not.

That premise is; but that's not the premise I said wasn't stated. Pascal leaves out the premise that if there's a God then He must prefer theists to atheists in Heaven. He presents a two-way dilemma: either no God or else a God who will penalize atheists. He doesn't include in his payoff-table the third possibility of a God who penalizes theists and rewards atheists in the afterlife. Maybe there's a God who values critical thinking and doesn't surround Himself with yes-men.

Secondly, In the post you are arguing about, neither ... nor

Saving 303 lives at the expense of 15,876 others for the sake of lax firearm controls is a pisspoor deal.

goes anywhere near the purported assumption that

...if the U.S. were to enact strict firearm controls then the murder rate would drop to Australian levels.

No? Then how the bejesus did you deduce that the U.S. is making any such deal to save 303 lives at the expense of 15,876 others for the sake of lax firearm controls?

Thirdly, after you did that I have explicitly rejected the possibility of implementing Aussie style gun controls here:

I regard implementing Aussie style firearms controls in the US as an impossibility.

This isn't about whether we can implement the controls; it's about compliance. Australia had a mass shooting; their government ordered its people to turn in their guns; and the people turned in their guns. That wouldn't happen here. Americans are not as obedient as Australians. If our government ordered us to turn in our guns, there'd be mass refusal. Tens of millions of us would take a "Pry them out of my cold dead fingers." attitude. Guns that had been registered would be reported stolen. If police came looking people would hide their guns. Millions of gun owners who never had any interest in it before would start downloading instructions on how to make their own ammunition.

Gun rights opponents are constantly peddling this canard that our lax firearms controls are costing us N-thousand lives a year and trading away our gun rights in exchange for saving those lives is a vastly better bargain. They are asking only a low-low price, and they are offering something far more valuable in return. But it's a bait-and-switch. If we take the deal and pay their low-low price -- if we give up our legal right to keep our guns -- they have no ability to deliver on their end of the trade. Our rights would be gone but the murders would remain. Only a sucker would take that deal.

The actual deal the U.S. has made for the sake of lax firearm controls -- what we actually get in return for foregoing strict controls -- is widespread compliance with the moderate regulations we have. The 15,000 thousand lives a year are a cost we will mostly pay regardless of firearms controls, so they aren't an element of the deal.

If stricter gun laws saved only one life it would be worth it.

That is a vastly better argument than 15,573 lives for the sake of lax firearm controls. People can of course debate the values it expresses, but at least mathematically it's reality-based.

 

[TomC]

My take: it is about self defense, not guns. Guns are just the first target in the war on self defense.

I'm not big on arguments from anecdotes.

But I see this particular anecdote as supporting firearm carrying.

If the woman upset by being unable to pay for a bag of potato chips had gone and got her burly boyfriend to settle things, and the clerk had pulled a .38 instead of a knife, this probably wouldn't have happened. The woman and her boyfriend would probably have backed off and the whole event ended without bloodshed.

Or the bag of chips.
Tom

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This argument appears to assume that if the U.S. were to enact strict firearm controls then the murder rate would drop to Australian levels.

If stricter gun laws saved only one life it would be worth it.

I'm in favor of stricter controls on government. I'm not talking about taking away your government, just putting reasonable controls on it. If it saves just one life it would be worth it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem with small government BS is it is BS. Here in Texas, our small government BS artist governor has slashed the budget for mental health care $117 million dollars. And refuses to fund Medicare exchanges to give all Texans affordable and adequte medical care. But finds big government perfectly acceptable when it comes to interfering in 101 ways with Texans' rights to freely vote.

This small government scam is BS from right winged morons and goofball Libertarians. And is costing lives. As if the small government weinies care.

"Republicans. The party that claims government is the problem not the solution, and when elected tries to prove it."
- P.J. O'Rourke

 

[Hermit]

...is Australia trying to ban self-defense as a concept?

No.

Each state and territory in Australia has its own laws relating to self defence, and they are very similar to each other. Sections 418 and 419 of the New South Wales Crimes Act are typical.

Section 418:

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.

(2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary--

(a) to defend himself or herself or another person, or​

​

(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or​

​

(c) to protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or interference, or​

​

(d) to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing any such criminal trespass,​

​

and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them.​

Section 419:

In any criminal proceedings in which the application of this Division is raised, the prosecution has the onus of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person did not carry out the conduct in self-defence.

Section 420 makes it explicit that you cannot plead self defence if you kill someone solely in order to protect property or to prevent criminal trespass or to remove a person committing criminal trespass. The equivalent of laws based on the castle doctrine does not exist in Australia.

I am not aware of anyone trying to ban self-defence as a concept in Australia.

 

[bilby]

The libertarian take on self defence appears to be that there is no such thing as excessive force; That any transgression, however minor, can be justly responded to by the deployment of lethal force.

Not only Australia, but every jurisdiction in the civilised world, has prohibited this insane approach, and insists that force used in self defence must be proportionate and reasonable.

You don’t and shouldn’t have the right to kill somebody because they have crossed your property line and you are fearful, without evidence, that they might have malicious intent. You do and should have the right to use proportionate force in self defence against a non-imaginary threat to your person or property.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The libertarian take on self defence appears to be that there is no such thing as excessive force; That any transgression, however minor, can be justly responded to by the deployment of lethal force.

That is one of the most common straw man versions of our position, yes. However, we recognize that if someone were to, say, cross your property line and you want them to leave, you should start by telling them to leave. Only a complete lunatic would say that our position is "oh my god he put his foot on my lawn I must open fire".

 

[bilby]

The libertarian take on self defence appears to be that there is no such thing as excessive force; That any transgression, however minor, can be justly responded to by the deployment of lethal force.

That is one of the most common straw man versions of our position, yes. However, we recognize that if someone were to, say, cross your property line and you want them to leave, you should start by telling them to leave. Only a complete lunatic would say that our position is "oh my god he put his foot on my lawn I must open fire".

Sure. And you live in a country with no shortage of armed lunatics.

 

[Patooka]

The libertarian take on self defence appears to be that there is no such thing as excessive force; That any transgression, however minor, can be justly responded to by the deployment of lethal force.

Not only Australia, but every jurisdiction in the civilised world, has prohibited this insane approach, and insists that force used in self defence must be proportionate and reasonable.

You don’t and shouldn’t have the right to kill somebody because they have crossed your property line and you are fearful, without evidence, that they might have malicious intent. You do and should have the right to use proportionate force in self defence against a non-imaginary threat to your person or property.

Just to drive the fucking point home, there is a reason why vigilantism and self defence are spelled differently.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And to further drive the point fucking home, only a completely fucking lunatic would think the libertarian position is "oh my god he put his foot on my property I must shoot now".

 

[Patooka]

And to further drive the point fucking home, only a completely fucking lunatic would think the libertarian position is "oh my god he put his foot on my property I must shoot now".

You wouldn't believe how many libertarians* actually believe that.

* and by libertarians I of course mean people who call themselves libertarians and not people who have the approval of yourself, the sole arbiter of everything libertarian.

 

[bilby]

And to further drive the point fucking home, only a completely fucking lunatic would think the libertarian position is "oh my god he put his foot on my property I must shoot now".

I don’t think that. I think it’s “oh my god he put his foot on my property I can shoot now”.

It’s also amazing how many utter cunts there are in the world who think “it’s not illegal” is the only justification they need to do something.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And to further drive the point fucking home, only a completely fucking lunatic would think the libertarian position is "oh my god he put his foot on my property I must shoot now".

You wouldn't believe how many libertarians* actually believe that.

* and by libertarians I of course mean people who call themselves libertarians and not people who have the approval of yourself, the sole arbiter of everything libertarian.

I would believe how few believe that. The question is how many you think believe that.

And to further drive the point fucking home, only a completely fucking lunatic would think the libertarian position is "oh my god he put his foot on my property I must shoot now".

I don’t think that. I think it’s “oh my god he put his foot on my property I can shoot now”.

That's my point - it is lunatic to ascribe that position to libertarians.

It’s also amazing how many utter cunts there are in the world who think “it’s not illegal” is the only justification they need to do something.

In what world would shooting people for putting their foot on your lawn "not illegal"?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

See, this thread is a perfect example.

Here we have a clear cut example of how self defense is the target, not guns, and still people are saying "hurr durr libertarians want to shoot people" and thinking they are clever with their made up scenarios.

Guns are just the primary target of those who hate self defense.