Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

Hey, a like-minded person! I was drawn to Utilitarianism as soon as I had heard of it, but I was turned off slighty by the fact that, in John Stuart Mill's case at least, Utilitarianism requires a person to do what results in the greatest good to be moral. I disagree, I think to be moral, you just have increase the net "goodness." To be immoral you have to decrease the net "goodness." And if you want to be amoral, you have no effect whatever on the net "goodness." But that's my view.

Your first link doesn't support your claim. It says, and I quote:

quote:

---

the trend in gun crime overall has been going down.

---

It does say

quote:

---

According to Home Office figures, there were 59 firearms-related homicides in 2006-07 compared with 49 in the previous year.

---

and

quote:

---

The figures do not show that gun crime is prolific or widespread in England and Wales.

---

The fact that crime incidents is going up can't be directly correlated to crime rates going up, either. The three areas with the most crime, London, Manchester and Midlands, are urban areas, I think. (I know London and Manchester are, not sure about Midlands)
That means you need to look at population trends as well. For instance, if you have a 10% rise in crime, but a 20% rise in population, the amount of crime per person has actually gone down.

Gun laws are never going to STOP gun crimes, but they will keep them down to a much lower level. Well, it means gun related homicides have gone up, while all gun crime has gone down recently. But even so...59 in a year? That's how much a committed crazy could take out in one day in America. So don't go whining about gun crime increasing in Britain when you can count by hand the number of homicides without taking off your shoes.

Ok, but how do you stop the people who are not obeying the law? Do you throw out the law and presto, no one's doing anything illegal? Or do you make the laws more stringent so that those who break it face tougher punishments? Your only verification of this is Hitler? I would fight vociferously for a registration law. I would fight just as vociferously against a law confiscating all firearms. It's not all or nothing, and with the possible exception of RAZD, I haven't seen anyone advocating for a universal gun ban. I think there should be limits on gun ownership (do you really need more than 10 guns), limits on gun types (do you really need a Howitzer?), waiting laws (does it really hurt you to wait 48 hours before picking up your gun? You have to wait at least that long for your online order of a DVD box set), and registration (does it really hurt you to send in a card with the serial number of your gun on it so people know where a gun comes from were it to be stolen and used in a crime?).Slippery slope arguments, especially when the supporting evidence for the slope in the first place is freaking Hitler, are weak arguments bordering on a fallacy. And apparently that's the law, so no worries there. Now, the owner of the gun store can create any rules he wants within his own establishment as long as they are within the limits of the law. If he wants to kick you out for touching a bullet without an FOID card, that's his right. Are you going to argue against the rights of business owners? Every law puts restraints on what a person can or cannot choose to do on their own. The balance required of a society is to decide where the limits of those infractions should be. You put the limit at saying anything about what you can or cannot do with a firearm. Most of us see the balance point at the point where tracking these potentially lethal weapons are going and making sure as well as we can that unbalanced, historically violent people who may or may not have a history of breaking the law don't get their hands on easy guns. You're right. And the Wright brothers' plane only flew a few feet. It wasn't working for actual travel, so why would they keep working on it? The point is that the current laws don't work. Throwing up our hands and saying "Laws can never work, so we should just go Mad Max," is as much a logical fallacy (or more) than the slippery slope oneyou employed earlier. Just because Law A doesn't work doesn't mean we shouldn't try to find a better law B that respects individual rights as much as possible while still amking it harder for people who plan to use the gun illegally to get their hands on them.

Well, you have to have a law to have punishments, right? So you agree, there should be gun control laws. What do you have against trigger locks? Do you think we should amek it easy for a kid to pick up dad's gun and shoot their little brother in the face? I think some rudimentary safety requirements are a good compromise between removing all guns and allowing all guns. I disagree. You have a very poor opinion of the police and the government in general it seems. The government is nominally under our control. We can petition the government to overturn a new law. We can take it to court to have it ruled unconstituional (which an across the board ban of all guns would be). We can elect new representatives who are more in line with our opinions. I don't see anyone in any position to do anything about it wanting to take away all guns. The fact that you do seems to be a slight bit of paranoia. And if you notice, there are ifs and possiblys scattered quite prominantly throughout. Rahvin even acknowledges the possibility of allowing hunting rifles, even if a "total ban" were to go in effect. And again, Rahvin is in no position to enact even those rules, and no one who is in that position has indicated a desire to do so, with the possible exception of a few who have no hope of finding a majority to even get the law debated, let alone enacted. Well, a collector's license could be issued, or there could be exceptions for guns that don't have ammo, or are considered collectible by a majority of gun enthusiasts, etc. Well, if my girlfriend and I get in a huge fight, I go off to drown my anger in alcohol and all it does is make me angrier, and I decide the bitch doesn't deserve to live any more, after all, all she does is spend my money, use my things and get in my way, and I go down to the local gun shop to buy the gun to kill her in the heat of the moment, don't you think it's probably a good idea for me to cool off a bit? They won't necessarily know where they are, just who bought them. This fear of the government is very perplexing to me. Do you have any reason to fear them like you do? I've been inconvenienced a couple of times, but the benefits I derive from the government far outweigh any minor inconvenience I have ever felt from them. Sounds like more irrational paranoia to me. No. I don't have to agree with my society. I'm just saying that society, as a whole, is beneficial, and no matter what society you have, it will infringe on your personal liberties. It is up to us, as part of that society to decide where those limits are to be or we can leave the society or try to change it. If slavery were allowed, I would try to change society to make it illegal again. Just as now, I am arguing to change society to protect those who don't want to be shot by a legal gun owner any more than I want to be shot by an illegal one while at the same time not taking away a responsible person's ability to own a gun at all. What am I being ignorant or stupid about? I'm not scared of the big bad government. I disagree with amny of the things it has done, but again, it has been more beneficial to me and those I know than detrimental. I don't see this dystopia you are crying about. When the government acts like big brother, I decry it (such as the wiretapping scandal and such). Do I see any issue with making sure violent and mentally unbalanced people don't get guns. No. In fact, I see a benefit of it. Only if you're assuming that we keep passing the exact same law over and over again without trying to make it better or learning from past laws. While I agree the congress can be wasteful with time and money, I can't quite get to the level where I see them passing the exact same law over and over again. But this seems to indicate you believe that there are two classes of people in the world: those who follow laws and those who don't and never the twain shall meet.
A perfectly good, law-abiding citizen can decide to go crazy and break any law out there. A former criminal can have a change of heart and renounce their previous ways, becoming a law abiding citizen.
Will a new law stop someone hell bent on doing something they want to do regardless fo laws or not? No. Will it stop someone from doing something they shouldn't do who respects laws? Yes. I'm not advocating a law that stops people from doing something I think should be allowed. So, a gun control law that I agree with stops or restricts people from doing something I think is dangerous to the populace or could be easily exploited to do something dangerous.

If you're breaking into a house to steal stuff, you don't need to confront anyone...in fact, most burglars would try to time their break-in to minimize this very thing, whether the owner has a gun or not.But, let's assume that guns are illegal, and the would-be robber knows that if he is caught carrying a gun, whether by getting arrested during the burglary, or even while walking/driving to and from the place to be burgled, he's facing a harsh sentence, while at the same time knowing that if anyone happens to be home, they won't have a guin either, the rationalization to carry a gun is lost.All a robber has to do to intimidate most people is break in, people will be confused, flustered, and scared just from that. Sure, some people may get angry very quickly and try to storm you, but again, they won't have a gun, so all you need is a knife, pipe, or even the table lamp by the window you just crawled through.If guns are outlawed, a criminal has much less need for a gun themselves, and even if that doesn't change the ratio of burgled people who get hurt/killed by intruders, it will significantly reduce the chances of bystanders getting hit by errant shots, kids finding a gun and hurting themselves accidentally, or someone shooting an intruder who turns out to be their own child sneaking back in after curfew. So, in other words, you're all for more strict gun control laws, as those of us on the pro-gun control side have been arguing? Cool, welcome to "the dark side."

I'm not advocating a ban on guns, I was merely positing a hypothetical to counteract your assertion that knowing a house had no guns would still make a robber want a gun.Besides, alcohol and drugs are a very bad comparison to guns. Alcohol and drugs are used on a personal level to make yourself feel differently, and thus are addicitive, and highly sought out, especially in situations where other avenues of making one feel better are not available. Guns, with the possible exception of a rush of adrenaline after firing it, have no such physiochemial response and are thus much more amenable to bans...not that I want one. Actually, as the Bill of Rights themselves prove, the Constitution not only can be re-written, it was specifically designed that way because the framers realized that what was necessary in the 1790s would not necessarily be eternal needs. Yeah, I'd like to see the pro-gun people's faces when the US Army rolls up Main Street with an Abrams tank and does bombing runs with their planes...oh, and targets Chicago with a nuclear bomb...maybe they'll even target Washington DC...wait, they live there, never mind...I'm not a paranoid who is afraid of the big bad government, and I also recognize that a hand gun a few rifles and a shotgun are going to be little deterence if the government decides it wants to take us out...for some reason that never seems to be articulated by those advancing this scenario. I relish my freedoms and rights, and will fight any attempt to take away rights I feel are necessary and actual rights (rather than priveleges). Being able to kill something from a distance isn't something I consider a right...it is a privelege, and one I feel should be regulated and handed out with discretion. This is a great quote, and if anyone was coming after a group of people based on religion, ethnicity, or heritage, I'd speak up. If they came after me and stopped me from using Mercury as I saw fit, or to stop me from spraying DDT all over my yard and polluting the drinking water, I'd let them, because it's a public safety consideration and there are better ways to attain my goals that don't involve those banned means.I guess the question comes down to...what's so damned special about a gun that gets people so riled up? I know why I'm not a big fan...they kill people with little no upside beside that...which to me is a downside. So, why are you so in love with them?

You're right, but I know a lot of people who have...and not a single one of them used a gun to do it. No, but that's my whole point. He doesn't have a gun, so you know, you can...run. A gun only raises the stakes. Robbers aren't all dumb people who "like make big noise wif my hands." They know the charges of a breaking and entering are far less severe than homicide or even accidental manslaughter.

And I'm arguing that it's not. If you think the government would care one whit about whether or not you had a gun if it wanted to go to war against its own citizens, you're living in a dream land.I, however, realize that the government going to war against its own citizens is an all but ludicrous scenario. While the government may do things that many think are against the best interests of the government, quite a few things I can think of off the top of ym head would fit this, I don't see them ever entering a scenario where they'd "invade" their own country. The only instances I can think of from history are the National Guard being called into the south to protect minorities during the Civil Rights era, and try to stop looting during natural disasters.In neither of these situations do I think the government was in the wrong and that the populace should have "stood up to" them, and the people who do/did think so, I would rather them not be armed.If it ever came down to the population against the government, we have means to get rid of them through elections. If they decide to ignore their own government and documents, then arguing about whether the constitution gives us the right to guns is moot anyway...so I don't see any situation where this comes to a practical head. I think the argument is paranoid.

Ok, say everyone in my tosn of 70,000 is packing guns. The government decides my town is not worthy of existence anymore and wants the citizens dead. They send a couple planes over, drop a number of strategically aimed bombs, and viola, city decimated, population all but eradicated...all the guns we had? Cooling lumps of metal...or at least a bit useless in the defense of the city.So...just why would the government care if we had guns again? You're the one making the positive claim...there exists a likely/logical scenario in which the government would decide to invade it's own country/citizenry and for which the possibility of shotguns and handguns are a significant deterrent to that outcome. Let's hear it.{AbE} I'd add that the government would have to unjustified in doing so in tis scenario, but since we'd likely disagree on when the government is justified in going in to an area to keep peace, we can leave this as a side consideration.Edited by Perdition, : AbE above

That depends on the reasons for the invasion, wouldn't it?
They have a vested interest on the infrastructure and the people. So, these facts would be a bigger deterrent than guns. If the government, for whatever reason, decided that these two considerations don't outweigh the desire to invade...then guns are not going to be much of a further deterrent. Again, depends on the reason for invasion. Also, as we have shown in Iraq and Afghanistan, a well trained military with highend weapons and protection are not easily turned away by rabble in the streets with guns...even when the most violent rabble aren't concerned with collateral damage. You called me naive for asserting that there were few to no scenarios I could think of that would result in the American government invading her own land (especially if I add the caveat that they do so unjustifiably) regardless of gun posession. That's a good quote, but it didn't seem to stop the British during the early years of the country. Not to mention, the physical isolation of our country compared to the rest of the world (only two countries, who happen to be allies, have the ability to directly invade us over land) makes an invasion expensive, and any invasion would be seen from space, giving our military and national guard forces time to get to where they need to be, plus, any country with the ability to actually carry out a full-scale invasion is an ally, all of which do a far better turn at dissuading an invasion than the possibility of the populace having firearms.Again, we're left with the specific scenario involving invasion...we defeated Japan in WWII without invading her mainland either...all we had to do was drop two nukes. Arguments for against the morality of the decision, it effectively cowed the country without an armed populace being a factor.All I'm saying, is that with the technology available to governments...especially first world ones, firearms are quickly becoming obsolete...but still dangerous in inexperienced, unbalanced, or overly emotional hands.