Guns

[BobK]

Guns only exist to remove life or liberty.

You are wrong. As has been pointed out to you several times by a number of people, guns also exist for other reasons. Punching holes in paper, for instance.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You are wrong. As has been pointed out to you several times by a number of people, guns also exist for other reasons. Punching holes in paper, for instance.

No arguments that have actually extended Liberty beyond a narrow definition bound to rights, and that isn't all that Liberty means.

Read back through to see why actual specific guns that you've seen aren't "guns in general".

 

[BobK]

So you're saying guns exist to remove life or liberty except for the guns which don't? Wut?

We've been over exactly this before, perhaps it's you who should go back and re-read stuff.

 

[Danoff]

Guns only exist to remove life or liberty. Discuss. Ask the invigilator for extra bullets if you require them.

The gun removes liberty. The removal of liberty preserves the liberty of an other(s).

He said "only", he's wrong.

 

[TenEightyOne]

We've been over exactly this before, perhaps it's you who should go back and re-read stuff.

If you or I own a gun for sport that doesn't change the primary reason for the invention- or existence-of guns in general. And our guns wouldn't be guns in general.

A generalisation on the reason for the origin of guns or the assessment of their raison d'etre is obviously separate from what Zenith or you or I own a gun for, no? That seems to be simple linguistics as much as anything.

 

[Zenith]

So you're saying guns exist to remove life or liberty except for the guns which don't? Wut?

We've been over exactly this before, perhaps it's you who should go back and re-read stuff.

We've redefined guns to be whatever TEO needs them to be to suit his laughably ignorant and narrow view. I'll start calling mine "bullet hurlers."

Didn't you get the memo?

When wrong, throw out everything that makes you wrong. Like the Identity Property....

 

[TenEightyOne]

We've redefined guns to be whatever TEO needs them to be to suit his laughably ignorant and narrow view. I'll start calling mine "bullet hurlers.".

If you read through the thread you'll see clearly why Famine has already shown that to be incorrect, I didn't subscribe to a view that they were bullet-machines of any kind, I'm sorry to say you confused me with someone else.

Briefly on the subject of narrow views; the definition you're using of "liberty" binds it with rights, that's one very narrow definition and not a normal one outside particular legal and social frameworks (including American society). It's not the normal usage of the word.

Use the full definition of it and stop hiding in rights-ology whilst trying evade an uncomfortable proposition.

 

[Danoff]

And how do you name the things in the logic,

Convention, or just label them "A" and "B". It's irrelevant.

or what you're measuring, or what for,

Logic is independent of those things.

Assume:
A
If A then B
Conclusion:
B

Doesn't matter what A and B or or whether they're named A and B or what A and B are for.

or when something is or isn't, or when its halfway, what the inputs are, what the outputs are.

You need to frame the problem well.

Those are subjective processes of reasoning based on previous theories, understandings or observations.

...and you have no basis for that statement.

We make logic to help describe our observations, it is not a pre-existing part of the organism.

Logic is not something that we make, it is a feature of the universe. That's like saying that we made Venus to describe our observations of Venus.

It is subjectively constructed to perform objective observation.

There is absolutely nothing subjective about logic. You have yet to give a single example.

 

[Zenith]

If you read through the thread...

Pot, meet kettle...

Use the full definition of it and stop hiding in rights-ology whilst trying evade an uncomfortable proposition.

I haven't been evading anything. You're the one who still hasn't answered probably 3 paragraphs worth of counter-points and hasn't provided any reasoning besides "because I said so."

You are in dire need of a discussion coach. You've unsuccessfully danced around just about every point that has completely destroyed your asinine opinions.

I didn't say squat about rights when we were discussing whether or not guns used to put holes in paper were guns or not guns. Hint: Guns are guns. Guns that put holes in paper are guns. You (of all the geniuses I've seen on this forum) will not succeed in breaking the Identity Property.

Listen to people smarter than you. When you're wrong, fix your opinions, stop pretending that you can bend the rules of logic to make yourself right. It's idiotic and (almost) sad to watch.

Briefly on the subject of narrow views; the definition you're using of "liberty" binds it with rights, that's one very narrow definition and not a normal one outside particular legal and social frameworks (including American society). It's not the normal usage of the word.

Your definition of rights and liberty are beyond help. Good luck.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Hint: Guns are guns. Guns that put holes in paper are guns. You (of all the geniuses I've seen on this forum) will not succeed in breaking the Identity Property.

I don't need to, I have some etymological understanding.

You miss the point that to use the gun in protection you need to use it to threaten. A couple of people have tried to point that out to you.

Your definition of rights and liberty are beyond help. Good luck.

No, they're exactly the same as yours when I talk about 'rights and liberty'. And I'm probably better qualified than you too.

When I talk about 'liberty' according to the dictionary definition I don't need the super-legal definition, I use the ordinary one that constitutes the normal meaning. Which has nothing to do with rights or society like your sub-definition.

your asinine opinions.

Baaaa.

Assume:
A
If A then B
Conclusion:
B

Doesn't matter what A and B or or whether they're named A and B or what A and B are for.

But that's symbolic logic, your argument said

If might does not make right, then the initiation of force of one individual against another is inherently a subjective value judgement, valuing force over the other person's will. Once you do that, you logically open yourself to the use of force against you

No, because that isn't an exchange defined by symbolic logic, and this was a piece of logic that you used in the Human Rights thread with the same intent as here.

The exchange in your second quote applies a subjective view of rights, there's nothing symbologically logical about it, the outcome will always be decide by random chance, the very simple goals of each sentience, and their thermodynamic/integral ability to attain their goals.

 

[LeMansAid]

He said "only", he's wrong.

I was merely magnifying your response with extra truth.

If TEO genuinely thinks that guns are not used for anything other than stripping people of life and liberty, I will laugh and point just as hard. I seriously think it's not the case. *edit - That TEO thinks that.

-------------------------------------------------------------

The way that TEO's points are put across can sometimes appear confusing and confused, but this is where having a bit of trust in someone that clearly has intellect can help. I try to recognise people with similar thought processes to mine and pay attention, and not just align myself with the people that only focus on marrying end thought.

There are people around here that I disagree with while respecting their approach. Others, that I feel completely misaligned with in both the former and the latter sense.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The way that TEO's points are put across can sometimes appear confusing and confused, but this is where having a bit of trust in someone that clearly has intellect can help. I try to recognise people with similar thought processes to mine and pay attention, and not just align myself with the people that only focus on marrying end thought.

That's a criticism that I'll take on board gladly, one of the reasons I've been successful is my often-commented-on chaotic way of making perfect order of things from beginning to end. But often falling off inspection platforms. :\

I will try to make the head spaghetti better.

I don't think guns are used to remove life or liberty, I'm saying that they only reason "guns" as a collective noun, as a concept, as an object class, they only exist to remove life or liberty.

That doesn't mean we haven't found a hundred other marvellous uses for them but that doesn't change their raison d'etre, their "reason for being" which doesn't translate quite so well to American English. To Be is normally wider/longer in English, if you see what I mean.

Is that their only use now? No. Do I think they should be removed from all society? Yes. Do I think Americans should be allowed to carry them? Yes. Do I think their only raison d'etre is to remove life or liberty? Yes.

 

[Exorcet]

I don't think guns are used to remove life or liberty, I'm saying that they only reason "guns" as a collective noun, as a concept, as an object class, they only exist to remove life or liberty.

I don't agree. Maybe the motivation behind the first gun was killing, but after that it becomes irrelevant. The most accurate statement behind why guns exist is as was earlier said, demand. Also, even if the first gun maker wanted to kill, that still says nothing about liberty.

That doesn't mean we haven't found a hundred other marvellous uses for them but that doesn't change their raison d'etre, their "reason for being" which doesn't translate quite so well to American English. To Be is normally wider/longer in English, if you see what I mean.

For many guns, killing would be one of the "other" uses. There really isn't any link between gun #1 and target guns available to buy now. Saying that the reason behind guns (beyond what I explained above, basically a coincidence) is killing is like saying the reason behind plastic knives is killing.

Is that their only use now? No. Do I think they should be removed from all society? Yes. Do I think Americans should be allowed to carry them? Yes. Do I think their only raison d'etre is to remove life or liberty? Yes.

That's contradictory, if you think they should be removed from society you can't think that anyone should be allowed to carry them.

Also (I'm taking a stab in the dimly light room) I don't see any nobility in stating that you think guns are terrible, but then turning around and saying that if people disagree they should be able to do what they want. Thinking like that might be why you don't like the rights argument so much since to you it seems like people trying to force opinion on others, but it's not. The rights argument is trying to explain facts to others, which is why the pro-rights side is what it is. This is not at all arrogance since as long as the rights argument is true, that side is correct. Point out the logical fallacy behind the rights argument and it goes away.

 

[BobK]

I don't think guns are used to remove life or liberty, I'm saying that they only reason "guns" as a collective noun, as a concept, as an object class, they only exist to remove life or liberty.

No. Wrong. The reason guns exist is to batter down walls. Not for killing. Not for depriving liberty. For knocking down walls. Of course we don't use them for that very much any more, but that is their raison d'etre.

Whether or not they were originally devised to kill, to "deprive liberty", to knock down walls, whatever, is moot today anyway. The reasons they exist today have been spelled out many times in this thread.

 

[Fastcarguy]

Guns dont take or give life and liberty. They protect it.

 

[Danoff]

No, because that isn't an exchange defined by symbolic logic, and this was a piece of logic that you used in the Human Rights thread with the same intent as here.

Symbolic logic is logic with symbols - there's no bright line there.

If TEO genuinely thinks that guns are not used for anything other than stripping people of life and liberty, I will laugh and point just as hard. I seriously think it's not the case. *edit - That TEO thinks that.

Ok, let's find out what he thinks based on what he said - because I don't like to go down the path of guessing what he meant:

I don't think guns are used to remove life or liberty, I'm saying that they only reason "guns" as a collective noun, as a concept, as an object class, they only exist to remove life or liberty.

That doesn't mean we haven't found a hundred other marvellous uses for them but that doesn't change their raison d'etre, their "reason for being" which doesn't translate quite so well to American English. To Be is normally wider/longer in English, if you see what I mean.

Is that their only use now? No. Do I think they should be removed from all society? Yes. Do I think Americans should be allowed to carry them? Yes. Do I think their only raison d'etre is to remove life or liberty? Yes.

So clearly @LeMansAid was right, and I was misunderstanding the point @TenEightyOne was trying to make. I thought he was saying guns could only be used to remove life and liberty (I don't think anyone would argue that they can't be used for that purpose). Turns out that's not the case, what he's actually arguing is that guns exist only for that purpose. He says they are created for that purpose - and sometimes people use them for reasons other than their creation (like self-defense). He's wrong on that as well. How do I know that?

When you buy a product you cause a manufacturer to make more to fill demand. When I bought my Smith and Wesson (actually it was a gift, so it was bought for me), it caused Smith and Wesson to make another gun to fill that demand. The reason guns exist is to fill demand - they are in the most literal sense created/manufactured/assembled from raw materials to meet the demands of consumers. Full stop.

If that's as far as you want to go, that's why guns exist.

We can take it a step further though, and say that the reason the demand from consumers exists is the same as the purpose consumers have for them. That means that guns exist for any and all purposes that consumers have for purchasing them. Now that's a lot of purposes. Some people who buy guns will use them to rob people or shoot up elementary schools. So clearly part of the reason guns exist (are created/manufactured) is to remove life and liberty. But what fraction of guns produced is that?

Let's assume a different gun was used in every single crime that might involve a gun in the US in a given year. Now, that's way over estimating it, but let's assume it anyway. There were 10,189,902 crimes in the US in 2012. Let's call it 10 million to make the math easier. Let's toss out theft. Most of that's not at gunpoint anyway, but also TEO said life and liberty, and while property rights are inherent in liberty, I don't think he meant it that way. That covers 9 million of those crimes. So we're left with 1 million, and while it's majorly conservative to assume all of those were made with guns, we'll go with it anyway. Let's further assume every single one of those guns was purchased legally (stop laughing, we're going to assume it). Let's even further assume that every single one of those guns was purchased in 2012. And let's assume that every single one of those guns was purchased in the US. I know I know, we're getting ridiculous at this point with how much we're biasing the numbers in favor of guns being used for crimes, but let's just see what we get. Total number of crimes = 1 million for 2012. How many guns were sold in 2012? About 17 million*. If we do some division, that's 6%.

So, 6% of the time, using that ridiculously conservative calculus, guns are manufactured (created) for the purpose of removing life or liberty. What about the other 94%? Well that those guns would have been created for some purpose other than removing life and liberty. Why do law abiding citizens buy guns anyway?

They buy guns for the purpose of self-defense largely. Some guns are purchased for hunting, or target practice, but a lot of guns, and I mean a lot of guns, are purchased for self defense. What is self defense - it's the intent to preserve life and liberty.

So, not only is TEO wrong that guns exist only to remove life and liberty. He's wrong in the notion that that's even a majority case. The vast majority of the time guns are created - they exist - to preserve life and liberty, at least in the US.

So does this all breakdown when we look at guns globally then? No, because TEO said they only exist to remove life and liberty. That means that if a single gun is created to do anything else, he's wrong. Well, the vast majority of guns in the US are created for other purposes - one of the primary ones being the opposite of what TEO claims. So it doesn't matter if you're considering the whole universe, TEO is wrong in his claim.

Stop with the applause, this is embarrassing. I know, I know, that was a masterful deconstruction - but I can't take all of the credit. It was a ridiculous claim to begin with. TEO deserves a lot of the credit here, you should be clapping for him as well.

* The 17 million figure assumes a one-to-one correlation between background checks processed and gun sales. Apparently that number could be quite low compared to the actual sales in the year because you can buy multiple guns with a single background check.

 

[Tornado]

What I always found interesting with that argument is that in the ~2 years I shot competitively, I never once managed to shoot someone in the face with the purpose-built target rifle that nonetheless apparently existed solely to kill people.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Why do law abiding citizens buy guns anyway?

They buy guns for the purpose of self-defense largely.

Ouch, you shot yourself in the analogy. Excruciating,

Stop with the applause, this is embarrassing. I know, I know, that was a masterful deconstruction - but I can't take all of the credit.

It sounds a bit slow from here if I'm honest

You're still missing the fact that a modern leisure market is not representative of the absolute raison d'etre, even so you immediately produce figures that imply the bulk of purchases are with the intention of removing life or liberty (hard to defend oneself with by doing neither).

The pop-doctrine acolytes enjoyed it tremendously though, I don't doubt

 

[Exorcet]

imply the bulk of purchases are with the intention of removing life or liberty (hard to defend oneself with by doing neither).

The US and USSR defended each other with nuclear weapons during the entire duration of the Cold War. Guns work much the same way. The majority of purchases, if we go by Danoff's math seem to not revolve around removing life and/or liberty.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The US and USSR defended each other with nuclear weapons during the entire duration of the Cold War. Guns work much the same way. The majority of purchases, if we go by Danoff's math seem to not revolve around removing life and/or liberty.

And how does MAD actually work? It offers a deterrent. Against what?

 

[Exorcet]

Pretty much any kind of offense.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Pretty much any kind of offense.

And how does the deterrent work against that?

 

[Exorcet]

Threat of retaliation.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Threat of retaliation.

The threat to use the weapons against someone? What would the effect of that be? It seems on the face of it that the purpose of the weapons is very clear in this instance and that it doesn't contradict the universal reason for the creation of guns.

 

[BobK]

The threat to use the weapons against someone? What would the effect of that be? It seems on the face of it that the purpose of the weapons is very clear in this instance and that it doesn't contradict the universal reason for the creation of guns.

And the universal reason for the creation of guns, again. had nothing to do with killing people, or depriving anybody of their liberty.

How does one deprive someone of their liberty with a gun, anyway? Use a stack of them as a barrier or something? Perhaps to bar a door?

 

[TenEightyOne]

ow does one deprive someone of their liberty with a gun, anyway? Use a stack of them as a barrier or something? Perhaps to bar a door?

"Don't move, or I'll shoot".*


*Threat for illustration purposes only, mods.

 

[Exorcet]

The threat to use the weapons against someone? What would the effect of that be?

Injury of some kind.

It seems on the face of it that the purpose of the weapons is very clear in this instance and that it doesn't contradict the universal reason for the creation of guns.

Not quite, since the point was deterrence. So if the reason guns were created when they were was because someone wanted to harm someone else at the time, it's a totally different situation as deterrence is built around not causing harm.

"Don't move, or I'll shoot".*


*Threat for illustration purposes only, mods.

So basically, do what you want and face the consequences (supposing you were in self defense).

 

[TenEightyOne]

deterrence is built around not causing harm.

In one way or another it certainly is.

 

[Exorcet]

In one way or another it certainly is.

No because if someone is harmed, deterrence has failed. The goal is to deter the event from happening in the first place.

 

[Beeker1972]

I have never seen a gun fly around killing innocent people, but I seen individual persons using guns to kill innocent people. So it's better to control the person than the gun.