Guns don't stop guns from killing people. People do.
dave23 said:
RealityForAll said:I still don't think people should be able to have personal thermonuclear devices, but I'm an extremist.
ml1 said:Because of the outlawing of knives in London, London gangs are now substituting drain cleaner to blind victims, permanently disfigure them and create greater victim debilitation. See link in my earlier posting. Is the unintended consequence of outlawing knives (namely, acid attacks) greater than the original knife problem?
if you outlaw knives, people will just kill each other with rocks. Ergo, there should be no laws restricting ownership of weapons.
Bad people looking to commit murder and mayhem will usually find substitutes (which are often more damaging than the original arm that has been banned).
That's nothing. I don't think governments should have them.
if someone can get close enough to splash acid on someone, they would be close enough to shoot them point blank. Or fatally stab them. So unless someone thinks death is a better alternative to acid burns, I don't think gun or knife attacks would be preferable.
RealityForAll said:
Tom_Reingold said:The 2nd Amendment provides each and every one of us with a “basic right” of “individual self-defense.” Thus, outlawing bearable arms that can be used for self-defense, such as a pistol or stun-gun, violates SCOTUS precedent. See Caetano v. Massachusetts: https://www.law.cornell.edu/su...
And there is the "why make it illegal if criminals won't respect the law?" argument. And it's hilarious. Indeed, why have laws at all?
I do not think your comment makes sense. Especially, in light of the the fact that the right to bear arms and having the right, and ability, to defend one self are fundamental rights enshrined in our Bill of Rights.
I hate to disagree, but the 2nd provides that we can possess firearms in the furtherance of a well-regulated militia. It says ZERO about individual rights of self-defense.
RealityForAll said:
ml1 said:Because of the outlawing of knives in London, London gangs are now substituting drain cleaner to blind victims, permanently disfigure them and create greater victim debilitation. See link in my earlier posting. Is the unintended consequence of outlawing knives (namely, acid attacks) greater than the original knife problem?
if you outlaw knives, people will just kill each other with rocks. Ergo, there should be no laws restricting ownership of weapons.
Bad people looking to commit murder and mayhem will usually find substitutes (which are often more damaging than the original arm that has been banned).
Well, obviously the answer is for everyone in London to carry one of these.
If the Vegas shooter didn't have AR 15s, he just would have dropped a bleach bomb.
Pointing to knife violence as an argument against measures to reduce the availability of guns makes no sense. Guns are orders of magnitude more deadly. As I previously noted, the kinds of death rates terp points to as a problem in London over months happen in minutes in America thanks to guns. London's knife violence problem only serves to highlight how much more terrible the American situation is by comparison.
The U.K's response to their violence problems may or may not be at the point of diminishing returns -- I couldn't say. My country's gun problem is of such a far greater scope that the question of "diminishing returns" is an academic one for all intents and purposes. I'd love it if one day we were so successful at reducing gun violence that we could earnestly argue if we're now at the point where further action is effective, but we're so far from that point I don't understand why terp even raises it. Perhaps he visits the UK frequently or has family or friends there and so find their situation personally relevant; it's relevance to the U.S. is pretty close to nil.
As far as RFA's bringing up knife, acid, and other attacks -- why do you suppose that in the U.S. people reach for guns first, not acid? You premise appears to be that knives and acid are just as dangerous and effective as guns. If this were so, then why would anyone bother going out and buying a gun if the bleach under their kitchen sink does the job as well? The fact when given the choice, those intent in violence prefer guns, suggests your premise is flawed.
Finally, on the topic of self defense, I'd redirect posters to the story I opened this thread with -- an unarmed James Shaw successfully mitigating the attack by the gunman. I'd argue that was an instance of "self defense" -- and the defense of many others, too. How can one argue that guns are intrinsic to the right of self defense, when it's possible to exercise that right sans gun?
It's impossible to exercise the right to live without food, for instance. So one could logically say that the right to live implies the right to eat. Yet some will insist that the right to self defense implies a right to guns, despite the fact that one can defend oneself absent them. That's a logical leap to an unsupported conclusion.
Tom_Reingold said:
@terp, perhaps it depends on your definition of "solve." Legislation doesn't eliminate the problem, but it reduces it. And I see people rejecting the hope of legislation precisely because it doesn't eliminate the problem.
the legislation doesn't work, unless it is enforced and prosecuted. In a lot of cases the crime is downgraded, slap on the wrist.
dave23 said:
I do agree with the notion that Americans have a bent toward violence that other first-world, wealthy countries do not, which is all the more reason to limit access to high-capacity weapons. I disagree that the Second Amendment respects the right of anyone to have any type of armament they wish.
they can't have any armament, there are restrictions.
PVW said:
Pointing to knife violence as an argument against measures to reduce the availability of guns makes no sense. Guns are orders of magnitude more deadly. As I previously noted, the kinds of death rates terp points to as a problem in London over months happen in minutes in America thanks to guns. London's knife violence problem only serves to highlight how much more terrible the American situation is by comparison.
The U.K's response to their violence problems may or may not be at the point of diminishing returns -- I couldn't say. My country's gun problem is of such a far greater scope that the question of "diminishing returns" is an academic one for all intents and purposes. I'd love it if one day we were so successful at reducing gun violence that we could earnestly argue if we're now at the point where further action is effective, but we're so far from that point I don't understand why terp even raises it. Perhaps he visits the UK frequently or has family or friends there and so find their situation personally relevant; it's relevance to the U.S. is pretty close to nil.
As far as RFA's bringing up knife, acid, and other attacks -- why do you suppose that in the U.S. people reach for guns first, not acid? You premise appears to be that knives and acid are just as dangerous and effective as guns. If this were so, then why would anyone bother going out and buying a gun if the bleach under their kitchen sink does the job as well? The fact when given the choice, those intent in violence prefer guns, suggests your premise is flawed.
Finally, on the topic of self defense, I'd redirect posters to the story I opened this thread with -- an unarmed James Shaw successfully mitigating the attack by the gunman. I'd argue that was an instance of "self defense" -- and the defense of many others, too. How can one argue that guns are intrinsic to the right of self defense, when it's possible to exercise that right sans gun?
It's impossible to exercise the right to live without food, for instance. So one could logically say that the right to live implies the right to eat. Yet some will insist that the right to self defense implies a right to guns, despite the fact that one can defend oneself absent them. That's a logical leap to an unsupported conclusion.
Not every firearm discharged in anger results in a person being shot. Bad guys often miss, firearm jams, firearm needs to reloaded or the firearm is taken from the bad guy. However, with acid attacks it is much easier to throw drain cleaner in close proximity to a victim's face (I believe this is because few are on the look-out for a bottle of clear liquid, drain cleaner). In addition, acid (or drain cleaner) can pass through metal detectors presenting a significant obstacle to security procedures such as metal detectors. In addition, mass attacks in clubs have occurred in London. See https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/...
I agree once shot, the victim's chance of being mortally wounded is significantly higher than dying of an acid attack. However, it appears to me that acid attacks are easier to perpetrate successfully and the bad guy has less of a chance of missing the intended victim. As a result, IMHO you need to factor into the equation the fact that many times firearms are discharged and no one is injured. Further, one of the newspaper articles (which I linked to above) mentions that criminal gangs believe that acid attacks are generally more debilitating than knife and firearm attacks on average. For these reasons, I would prefer (assuming there is no way to avoid the assailant) to be confronted with an assailant with a firearm or a knife. Finally, how do we make public spaces with metal detectors safe from acid attacks (AKA drain cleaner attacks). Terrifying weapon as it will not be detected by a metal detector.
PS You have stated the following: "why do you suppose that in the U.S. people reach for guns first, not acid? You premise appears to be that knives and acid are just as dangerous and effective as guns. If this were so, then why would anyone bother going out and buying a gun if the bleach under their kitchen sink does the job as well? The fact when given the choice, those intent in violence prefer guns, suggests your premise is flawed." Your analysis presumes that the bad guys utilizing violence to get their way are rational actors capable of nuanced thinking and analysis. My experience is the opposite. Bad guys tend not to be particularly rational, unable to defer gratification and have difficulty analyzing consequences of their current actions. Thus, I think your premise that bad guys should be using acid if it was more effective/debilitating is based on the rationality and analysis of the bad guys (a premise that I do not believe cannot be defended).
RealityForAll said:I would prefer (assuming there is no way to avoid the assailant) to be confronted with an assailant with a firearm or a knife.
So if someone confronted you with a gun, you would feel like you would have the advantage if you were fighting back with a cup of acid?
ml1 said:
RealityForAll said:So if someone confronted you with a gun, you would feel like you would have the advantage if you were fighting back with a cup of acid?
I would prefer (assuming there is no way to avoid the assailant) to be confronted with an assailant with a firearm or a knife.
Yes. Especially, if the acid or drain cleaner was clear and in a bottle that looked like a water bottle (completely concealed weapon but in plain sight).
Looks like RFA, holding his cup of clear acid, is the only rational actor here. If he's right, after all, it's not just bad guys who are acting irrationally by preferring guns -- it's everyone from the gun manufacturers irrationally passing up fat profit margins by not switching to selling acid and dixie cups, it's the NRA for not changing their name and mission to be the National Acid Throwers' Association, and of course it's all the good buys with guns, throwing good money after bad purchasing things like AR-15's when they could have just as effective weapons for a fraction of the price.
PVW said:
Looks like RFA, holding his cup of clear acid, is the only rational actor here. If he's right, after all, it's not just bad guys who are acting irrationally by preferring guns -- it's everyone from the gun manufacturers irrationally passing up fat profit margins by not switching to selling acid and dixie cups, it's the NRA for not changing their name and mission to be the National Acid Throwers' Association, and of course it's all the good buys with guns, throwing good money after bad purchasing things like AR-15's when they could have just as effective weapons for a fraction of the price.
My theory is that most bad guys (at this point in time) steer away from using acid (or drain cleaner) as a weapon because it is morally reprehensible. No more, no less. However, as the frequency of these drain cleaner attacks escalate in London, it is possible that the people in the future may consider these types of attacks more acceptable and less morally reprehensible.
Phosgene gas (AKA mustard gas) is easily made at home with common household cleaners. Yet, bad actors rarely use this weapon despite its effectiveness. Once again, my best guess is that even bad actors generally believe this weapon is morally reprehensible.
PS Most people desiring a defensive weapon would prefer a weapons that is not morally reprehensible.
RealityForAll said:
Your analysis presumes that the bad guys utilizing violence to get their way are rational actors capable of nuanced thinking and analysis. My experience is the opposite.
My theory is that most bad guys (at this point in time) steer away from using acid (or drain cleaner) as a weapon because it is morally reprehensible. No more, no less.
Bad guys aren’t rational in your experience. But moral, yes?
DaveSchmidt said:
RealityForAll said:
Your analysis presumes that the bad guys utilizing violence to get their way are rational actors capable of nuanced thinking and analysis. My experience is the opposite.My theory is that most bad guys (at this point in time) steer away from using acid (or drain cleaner) as a weapon because it is morally reprehensible. No more, no less.Bad guys aren’t rational in your experience. But moral, yes?
Yes, to your question. The basis for my position is the moral psychology explanations and theory of NYU professor, Jonathan Haidt. The following is an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on social intuitionism:
"In moral psychology, social intuitionism is a model that proposes that moral positions and judgments are: (1) primarily intuitive ("intuitions come first"), (2) rationalized, justified, or otherwise explained after the fact, (3) taken mainly to influence other people, and are (4) often influenced and sometimes changed by discussing such positions with others.
This model diverges from earlier rationalist theories of morality, such as of Lawrence Kohlberg's stage theory of moral reasoning. Jonathan Haidt (2001) de-emphasizes the role of reasoning in reaching moral conclusions. Haidt asserts that moral judgment is primarily given rise to by intuition, with reasoning playing a smaller role in most of our moral decision-making. Conscious thought-processes serve as a kind of post hoc justification of our decisions."
Link to full Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
RealityForAll said:
ml1 said:Yes. Especially, if the acid or drain cleaner was clear and in a bottle that looked like a water bottle (completely concealed weapon but in plain sight).
RealityForAll said:So if someone confronted you with a gun, you would feel like you would have the advantage if you were fighting back with a cup of acid?
I would prefer (assuming there is no way to avoid the assailant) to be confronted with an assailant with a firearm or a knife.
And just be careful not to splash any on yourself.
I still don't think people should be able to have personal thermonuclear devices, but I'm an extremist.