Yet another US shooting

[The OP]

8 hours ago, banana said:

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.

All western legal systems supposedly follow the ethical theory of utilitarianism, which basically revolves around the idea that all legislation should ensure the greatest happiness of the greatest number. It is a balancing act of freedoms and restrictions which would best serve society at large, even if those restrictions do not suit certain citizens. It seems pretty clear that the adverse effects of widespread gun ownership in America outweigh the benefits. It is arguable that police being armed as a matter of course is also not in the interest of utilitarianism. However, I don't think many would argue that there does not require to be armed police force for certain situations, to ensure public safety. 

In the event that I am persecuted by the British government because I don't have a handgun to battle their M-16s and Harrier jump jets I will gladly eat humble pie. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by The OP

[Miguel Sanchez]

47 minutes ago, banana said:

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.

PARKLIFE

[NJ2]

I’ll not say it often but credit to banana there, he got right in to character there...”grocery store” and everything.

[renton]

48 minutes ago, banana said:

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.

Isn't that all really a question of balance of power, rather than an absolute position regarding guns? In the UK,  a disarmed police, and (largely disarmed) populace have access generally, to the same relative levels of violence with respect to each other to impose their will, as the US where every man and his dug is armed. Yet the former must lead to far lower levels of fatalities, right? There does exist a de facto monopoly of coercion via violence in both examples, however through the apparatus of the armed forces, above the civil police services. The hardiest , semi-automatic toting survivalist camped out in the Mid-West would have a life expectancy measured in the minutes in the face of a combined arms US army battle group, after all. Of course, the people most likely to cite their god given right to guns to protect themselves generally vote for parties and people who will increase spending to armed forces, to increase the vast gulf between the capabilities of the armed forces and your standard gun toting civilian, while also being in a near religious state of fervour with regards to the state's armed forces that are the ones with the built in monopoly.

[NotThePars]

Guns might kill a lot people but they also look cool so it’s impossible to say if they’re good or not

[coprolite]

42 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

Guns might kill a lot people but they also look cool so it’s impossible to say if they’re good or not

I've noticed a worrying trend in movies recently towards more realistic gun use. 

Action heroes can often be seen shooting from the shoulder and aiming nowadays. 

In the olden days Stallone or Arnie would only be seen randomly spraying bullets from waist height.

Guns are far more likely to kill people if actually aimed.

More worryingly, it looks way less cool to hold a gun properly.

This is typical of the liberal elite and their socialist agenda.

[D Angelo Barksdale]

7 hours ago, banana said:

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

Still waiting on you getting back to me about these stats m9.

On 03/08/2018 at 13:41, banana said:

FTFY, and thanks fans, sorry I'm late.

Thread going better than expected with a few posters correctly pointing out that women are also perpetrators (moreso than men by common observation and the stats), and men also victims (moreso than women again by observation and the stats, including the common weaponisation of DV by way of false accusations, routinely to gain an advantage in the justice system), and that the kids have the shit end of it too (DV is generational, so they are more likely to pass it on to their own kids).

A few usual suspects wailing about these inconvenient facts, but that's sadly to be expected.

 

On 03/08/2018 at 14:59, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

Calling bullshit on this.

Sources plz.

 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

At the risk of being crass,

I think this thread’s long past having to worry about that

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Anyone, ethical argument?

 

 

 

You could google “Monopoly On Violence” for a start and maybe read a first year textbook on political philosophy if you’re really keen

 

Hope that helps

 

 

[SlipperyP]

They're really building the full NFL experience into the game, it seems.
At this rate Madden 20 will likely have a feature where somebody will come round to your house with a pitbull and offer your dug a square go.

Where can I buy?

[Detournement]

On 29/08/2018 at 12:16, renton said:

The hardiest , semi-automatic toting survivalist camped out in the Mid-West would have a life expectancy measured in the minutes in the face of a combined arms US army battle group, after all. 

The Vietnamese and Iraqis did ok. Afghans are in their 17th year against the mighty US Army.

Individually the gun nuts are outmanned but collectively they have to be respected. 

[renton]

Just now, Detournement said:

The Vietnamese and Iraqis did ok. Afghans are in their 17th year against the mighty US Army.

Individually the gun nuts are outmanned but collectively they have to be respected. 

It's all about the rules of engagement, and the political dimension. If the US, or any western military for that matter, were allowed to engage in an all out total war with no regards to civilian casualties, none of those groups you mentioned would have survived very long. Indeed, in Syria where Assad doesn't give a shit about the court of public opinion, the same asymmetric tactics that have held up the US military for years were undone pretty quickly, and the various rebel groups stomped on pretty badly. 

In the hypothetical scenario of the state coming after the gun nuts, you can't imagine it being under the auspice of particularly Liberal democracy, ergo, I feel that they'd get rolled right over the top of in short order.

[Detournement]

The US didn't follow any rules in Vietnam beyond not using Atomic weapons. 

The institutional racism that underwrites their aggresion abroad wouldn't apply in the USA. Working class Americans wouldn't attack each other.

[renton]

9 minutes ago, Detournement said:

The US didn't follow any rules in Vietnam beyond not using Atomic weapons. 

The institutional racism that underwrites their aggresion abroad wouldn't apply in the USA. Working class Americans wouldn't attack each other.

In that case you have to factor in the US capacity to endure casualties, which has varied from conflict to conflict and ended up being the chief arbiter of US efforts in South East Asia. Also, a number of service chiefs at the time felt they were hamstrung in their efforts to control the Vietnamese situation - mostly in terms of limiting air support over North Vietnam early in the war.

In any case, the constant friction of combat has fairly advances the US ability fight asymmetric opponents.  The central point, that the US military possesses a de facto monopoly on coercion via violence, as banana called it, stands.

Edited August 30, 2018 by renton

[Miguel Sanchez]

You both appear to be missing the fact that an afternoon's droning would obliterate any sort of militia uprising with considerable ease.

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

You both appear to be missing the fact that an afternoon's droning would obliterate any sort of militia uprising with considerable ease.

And probably the succeeding generation, too, particularly if there are any school buses driving about.

[Zetterlund]

 

[Kennboy1978]

 

Do you think this will help or hinder the NRA's stance?

 

One one hand this 'proves' their theory that only people with mental health issues pose a threat and this one fell through the net when it comes to checks. On the other, it will further prove how fucking stupid America's current laws are regarding gun control (or lack thereof).

 

In this instance the NRA have no answer. An obvious case of current on-going mental health issues but he STILL managed to get a gun. They'll probably put another couple of check boxes on a form and that will be that.

 

 

ETA: First reply. What's the point?

 

[tongue_tied_danny]

On 29/08/2018 at 15:52, NotThePars said:

Guns might kill a lot people but they also look cool so it’s impossible to say if they’re good or not

Guns do look cool.

[banana]

On 8/29/2018 at 18:59, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

Still waiting on you getting back to me about these stats m9.

I've covered this in some of my previous P&B Newsletters, some repeat reading / viewing for your pleasure, m7...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233717660_Thirty_Years_of_Denying_the_Evidence_on_Gender_Symmetry_in_Partner_Violence_Implications_for_Prevention_and_Treatment

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228350210_Gender_symmetry_in_partner_violence_The_evidence_the_denial_and_the_implications_for_primary_prevention_and_treatment

 

As a wee bonus, a study in the US found that a man who calls the police on a violent partner is far more likely to be arrested than the woman he's reporting, while the reverse does not hold. For that you need to read up on critiques of the Duluth Model of IPV. Happy digging!