Jump to content

Yet another US shooting


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Detournement said:

It's not really any fuckwit in America though. It's continually men with learning difficulties who are usually on anti psychotic drugs.

 

 

 

At the risk of being crass, would men with learning difficulties on anti-psychotic drugs not come under the category of 'any fuckwit' more than most?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

The death toll.

And appeal to consequences is one way to look at it, though your answer only partially addresses the question, and doesn't address other consequences.

What's the ethical argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get where it's better in a democracy to allow neds, lunatics and suspected terrorists to legally buy assault rifles for the price of a few grams of coke from a gun fair, totally unrestricted, to balance police and military who are under strict civil control. Unless you take BLM to the extreme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get where it's better in a democracy to allow neds, lunatics and suspected terrorists to legally buy assault rifles for the price of a few grams of coke from a gun fair, totally unrestricted, to balance police and military who are under strict civil control. Unless you take BLM to the extreme.


A few grams of cooncil or prop?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Cardinal Richelieu said:

Looks like no-one's biting. Why not get things moving by explaining why citizens should be afforded the same gun rights as "actors of the state". 

I'm not exactly sure what the for ethical argument would be, this isn't an issue I've thought about with considerable depth beyond the usual shallow narratives, hence why I'm asking questions.

Gut feeling is that the state should not have a monopoly on coercion via violence (generally bad), nor defence of a citizen's self, family and property (generally good).

Seems like no-one knows, or is at least willing to share the ethical argument against. Which I find strange considering the regular insta-outrage over citizens owning guns.

Maybe it's a matter of framing to a large extent - if you grew up in a setting/society where deferring/appealing to authority is the norm (tell the teacher, tell HR, tell the police; the council should do something, the government should give me something), then citizens owning guns is out of frame. In a flipped context, they are in-frame.

Off at a bit of an angle, but if I'm 15 miles from the nearest police station and grocery store, having the means to grow my own food and protect myself and property don't seem like unreasonable propositions...? I suppose the framings I'm getting at are dependence on / independence from others, namely state authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cardinal Richelieu said:

Looks like no-one's biting. Why not get things moving by explaining why citizens should be afforded the same gun rights as "actors of the state". 

Quote

this isn't an issue I've thought about with considerable depth

Refreshing honesty from a vacuous troll. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Refreshing honesty from a vacuous troll. 

I'm pretty much always honest on here, which is partly what annoys folk.

Anyway, you seem to be suggesting you've thought about this with considerable depth. Genuinely curious,  what's the ethical case? (for and against)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...