Navy SEAL Chris Kyle "American Sniper." Shot and killed.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I'll call that a minor breakthrough.

So you admit that were no contradiction then?

Originally Posted by citizenzen

It's a discussion point because much of the gun debate is based on the individual's perceived needs versus what's best for society overall.

This is clearly illustrated when you said earlier in this thread ...

And "what's best for society" is a matter of opinion, not fact.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

It would be cool if you could see that the greater good is what sustains your life and well-being.

But I guess it matters not.

i think it would be cool if you realized that all people act in their own self interest, even if the benefits or motivations appear to be altruistic. What actually "sustains my life and well-being" is mutually consenting interactions between individuals driven by their own self interest.

The greater good, is an ambiguous, dangerous term that needs to stop being used before people start during terrible things like invading Iran.

[lannister80]

Originally Posted by eric/

What's the acceptable ratio of dead children from accidental house fires caused by candles?

ban candles.

That's the argument you're presenting here.

Did I say we should ban candles or guns? NO.

In answer to your question: "What's the acceptable ratio of dead children from accidental house fires caused by candles?", clearly we have not yet reached an unsatisfactory ratio because a large portion of society is not clamoring to seriously restrict/ban candles.

The same cannot be said for guns.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by lannister80

Did I say we should ban candles or guns? NO.

In answer to your question: "What's the acceptable ratio of dead children from accidental house fires caused by candles?", clearly we have not yet reached an unsatisfactory ratio because a large portion of society is not clamoring to seriously restrict/ban candles.

The same cannot be said for guns.

That just proves it's arbitrary, and not based on objective reasoning.

i say one death from accidental candle fires is too many, we should ban candles!

It's no more or less valid than:

x number of gun deaths per year is too many, we should ban guns!

[lannister80]

Originally Posted by eric/

And "what's best for society" is a matter of opinion, not fact.

I'd say "less dead children" is a pretty solid metric to judge what's good for society, ASSUMING that there are not massive consequences for keeping those kids alive.

Hmmm, "keep kids alive" vs "taking away my enjoyment of shooting at the range". Social utility of shooting at the range vs dead kids...not a tough choice.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by lannister80

I'd say "less dead children" is a pretty solid metric to judge what's good for society, ASSUMING that there are not massive consequences for keeping those kids alive.

Hmmm, "keep kids alive" vs "taking away my enjoyment of shooting at the range". Social utility of shooting at the range vs dead kids...not a tough choice.

Same can be said for a variety of items, such as candles. We don't need them. Buy a lightbulb. 1 death from candles is too many.

[lannister80]

Originally Posted by eric/

That just proves it's arbitrary, and not based on objective reasoning.

i say one death from accidental candle fires is too many, we should ban candles!

It's no more or less valid than:

x number of gun deaths per year is too many, we should ban guns!

It's not arbitrary, it's determined by our cultural norms. Social utility is not set by an objective marker, but by how much a culture values x vs y.

There are other societies who he decided that guns were too dangerous to be in the hands of normal citizens. We are not one of those nations, at least not yet. Both models are valid: those other countries think the value of guns in private hands are not worth the costs. We think otherwise.

----------

Originally Posted by eric/

Same can be said for a variety of items, such as candles. We don't need them. Buy a lightbulb. 1 death from candles is too many.

That's logical, if you feel that way. Start an advocacy group for banning candles. Once you have a few millions people on your side, the nation will have to tackle the issue (or at least discuss it).

We decided lawn darts were too dangerous for the amount of social utility, so now they're illegal. It's not as if guns are magically different and immune from similar arguments.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by lannister80

It's not arbitrary, it's determined by our cultural norms. Social utility is not set by an objective marker, but by how much a culture values x vs y.

There are other societies who he decided that guns were too dangerous to be in the hands of normal citizens. We are not one of those nations, at least not yet. Both models are valid: those other countries think the consequences of guns in private hands are not worth the costs. We think otherwise.

So then if you aren't using any sort of moral standard for society, there can be no social progress, and any society is just as valid as any other.

so in turn:

Legalizing all guns is just as good as banning all them

Originally Posted by lannister80

That's logical, if you feel that way. Start an advocacy group for banning candles. Once you have a few millions people on your side, the nation will have to tackle the issue (or at least discuss it).

We decided lawn darts were too dangerous for the amount of social utility, so now they're illegal. It's not as if guns are magically different and immune from similar arguments.

Well my point here is just for people to recognize they are acting irrationally, and admit to that. Obviously I can't just go ban all candles to illustrate a point, but I can discuss the subject with people and get them to understand that their way of thinking isn't consistent or based on logical thought process, and then if they still wanted to act, so be it.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by eric/

Same can be said for a variety of items, such as candles. We don't need them. Buy a lightbulb. 1 death from candles is too many.

Still going on with the ridiculous comparisons of a product that is designed for killing versus a product designed for something else I see.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by zioxide

Still going on with the ridiculous comparisons of a product that is designed for killing versus a product designed for something else I see.

So the # of deaths don't matter, just what the product was designed for?

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by eric/

So the # of deaths don't matter, just what the product was designed for?

You seriously think candles cause more deaths than guns?

[eric/]

Originally Posted by zioxide

You seriously think candles cause more deaths than guns?

How many deaths matter then?

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by eric/

Same can be said for a variety of items, such as candles. We don't need them. Buy a lightbulb. 1 death from candles is too many.

If only the NRA was as socially responsible as the National Candle Association.

Fire Safety

As the popularity of candles rose dramatically from the mid- to late-1990s, so did the number of residential fires involving candles. In 1997, the NCA began to work with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and the ASTM International standards organization to develop industry standards that might reduce the number of accidental candle fires.

The first industry-wide standard, effective in 2000, called for the labeling of all candles with fire-safety precautions. Additional industry standards to enhance the fire-safety design of candles, glass containers, candle holders and candle accessories also have been established. NCA continues to spearhead the development of performance and design standards to reduce the potential for candle fires.

Because 85 percent of all candle fires are caused by consumer inattention to candles or misuse of candles, the NCA also embarked in the late 1990s on an aggressive campaign to educate consumers about the need for caution when burning candles. This important safety education program includes a broad range of informational, media and consumer outreach efforts, as well as cooperative endeavors with fire and safety organizations.

Regulatory Issues

NCA is frequently at the forefront of regulatory trends. More than 30 years ago, NCA members voluntarily agreed not to use lead wicks, placing the Association in the vanguard of the lead-free movement. In 2000, NCA went further and asked all U.S. candle manufacturers to join its members in signing a formal pledge not to use lead wicks. In 2003, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned lead wicks from the U.S. marketplace, an action long supported by the NCA.

International Cooperation

NCA frequently interacts with candle organizations, governmental authorities, and standards bodies in other nations and regions of the world to gain harmonization of standards and regulations impacting candle manufacturing, and to share technical information and research regarding candles.

I'd also point out they don't try to silence research on candle fire deaths.

Candle Fire Statistics

Nearly 10,000 residential fires are caused each year by the careless or inappropriate use of candles.

The National Candle Association urges consumers to always keep a burning candle within sight, keep candles away from anything combustible, and to keep candles out of the reach of children and pets.



Where Candle Fires Start *

Bedroom 36%
Living/Family Room/Den 16%
Bathroom 14%
Kitchen 11%
Items First Ignited *

Mattresses or Bedding 11%
Curtains/Blinds/Draperies 9%
Cabinetry 8%
Upholstered Furniture 6%
*Source: Home Candle Fires, Fire Analysis and Research Division, National Fire Protection Association, December 2011. Based on 2005-2009 annual averages

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by zioxide

You seriously think candles cause more deaths than guns?

In the UK in the 5 years up to 1998 there were 61 deaths from candle fires or ~12 a year.

In the US during the 5 years of 2006 to 2010 there were 126 deaths caused by candles or ~25 deaths a year. That's about 1/40th of the number of accidental deaths from guns.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by rdowns

If only the NRA was as socially responsible as the National Candle Association.

I'd also point out they don't try to silence research on candle fire deaths.

I don't care what the NRA does, so your point is lost on me.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by eric/

I don't care what the NRA does, so your point is lost on me.

The point being that when a product is determined to be dangerous, that steps are taken to reduce the danger the product presents.

[aerok]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

The point being that when a product is determined to be dangerous, that steps are taken to reduce the danger the product presents.

The best way to reduce stove related deaths is to give more stoves to American!

[elistan]

Originally Posted by webbuzz

NFA and firearms laws are not the same.

As for laws that are not enforced enough, Individuals that commit perjury on the 4473 form and prohibited individuals that are caught with a firearm.

A popular response (by both gun and gun-control advocates) to the various proposals being floated is "But that wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook." I think that's a bit myopic, but I think it's germain here. Adam Lanza, so far as I know, never commited perjury on a Firearms Transaction Record, and I suspect he didn't care about the ramafications of simply posessing the weapons considering what he was intending to do with them. Lanza's mother, the owner of the guns, posessed them legally as far as we know. Given that neither of your proposals would seem to do anything to prevent Sandy Hook or similar actions, what are your thoughts on that shooting, and how (if at all?) future similar shootings should be prevented?

[eric/]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

The point being that when a product is determined to be dangerous, that steps are taken to reduce the danger the product presents.

Great. So we put safety features on guns, made is so you have to be of a certain age to purchase one, etc...

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by elistan

A popular response (by both gun and gun-control advocates) to the various proposals being floated is "But that wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook." I think that's a bit myopic, but I think it's germain here. Adam Lanza, so far as I know, never commited perjury on a Firearms Transaction Record, and I suspect he didn't care about the ramafications of simply posessing the weapons considering what he was intending to do with them. Lanza's mother, the owner of the guns, posessed them legally as far as we know. Given that neither of your proposals would seem to do anything to prevent Sandy Hook or similar actions, what are your thoughts on that shooting, and how (if at all?) future similar shootings should be prevented?

A state law prevented Lanza from purchasing a rifle prior to the shooting.

Just days before the school shooting, Adam Lanza attempted to purchase a single “long gun” rifle from a local gun store but was turned away because he did not want to wait for the required 14-day background check, according to two federal law enforcement officials.

Sources said he entered the store “earlier in the week” in the Newtown area and inquired about buying one rifle. He was only 20 years old, and did not have a permit for firearms, and was told about a 14-day background check that would have to be done, the sources said.

“He didn’t want to wait the 14 days,” said one source, declining to be identified because the case is still under review. “So they denied him. The sale did not take place.”

Would any firearms law have prevented the shooting? Most likely not.

Since the State of Connecticut has sealed the investigation records an additional 90 days (beyond the standard 14 days), most of the details would be speculation. We do know that his Mother did purchase the weapons legally.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/16/us/con...-lanza-profile

Nancy Lanza's guns
The three weapons found at the scene of the shooting were legally purchased by Nancy Lanza, a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation told CNN.

Again, until the investigation records are released, discussion regarding prevention is speculative.

[elistan]

Originally Posted by eric/

Well, I'm an anarchist myself, so yes I totally disagree with the above. But philosophically, not practically.

Can you tell me what it means to be an anarchist? I'm not sure I'm clear on what your philosophical beliefs are. (And what do you mean "not practically?" As in, you don't approve of preventing the ownership of opium, but you understand the practicality of preventing the ownership of opium, and therefore support preventing the ownership of opium?)

That kind of proves my point doesn't it? Somebody is just saying well I feel this way so XYZ. There is nothing to actually base this on, other than whim.

Oh, yes, certainly abitrary unless you posit some moral authority that dictates these things, like a deity. But there's certainly a force that must be reckoned with if enough people with similar convictions get together and decide to act. I was describing how the members of that grouping feel, not trying to justify it.

Not you personally, I'm just trying to illustrate a point about the numbers.

Yes, it's true that people apply the "even a single death is too many" to one cause of death, yet are completely blase to deaths from a different cause. Usually it happens if people find worth in the latter cause (driving, candle light, sliced bread, etc.) but not the former (guns, RPGs, etc.) Different people have different standards and different morals. I can't explain it, I'm no philosopher. <shrug>

Ok, but then you also have to admit, by nature of your argument, that it's all arbitrary, that you have no basis for anything, and that's it's just a matter of your opinion. There is no right or justification for any of it, other than "well I guess I think this, and you have to do it", which is quite a moral problem.

Yep. That's society for ya. (Unless, like I said, you posit a moral authority that dictates right and wrong.) We're a bunch of people acting in a somewhat coordinated manner. Better hope the society's values match your own.

Ok, so what metric are you using to measure utility? How is that determined? I can just as easily say that the amount of pleasure gained by gun owners is greater than the social utility of cars, or that the possibility of needing those weapons for a revolution or something outweighs the deaths.

I thought you said you didn't hold much stock in the 2nd Amendment justification for owning firearms? (I'm honestly confused. Read enough semi-anonymous posts on the Internet and I sometimes forget who said what. Especially when some screen names can be so similar.)

Anyway, you say that there is pleasure to be had from shooting guns. No argument here. But my question in response is - is there a way to preserve that pleasure while significantly reducing the number of deaths from those guns? I say there is.

With no objective measurement of this utility, you can't make any sort of claim appealing to the utility of cars, because you haven't defined that metric.

Maybe we can come up with something like the Scoville to quantify it.

That's an opinion, not an argument. You need to make the distinction.

Well duh. That's my opinion, and much of society's opinion. And society's opinion carries a great deal of weight. One opinion, for example, is that murder is wrong. And, without some authority figure saying so, that opinion is just arbitrary as well. Not much you can do about it except try to change every individual member of society's opinion. As I said, "tough tooties" otherwies.

Why not just get rid of it? Eliminate all the deaths?

*hint, because of the pleasure obtained from watching it, and we allow individuals to freely choose to partake in such activities*

It's not the government that institutes these measures, it's NASCAR or whatever.

I suspect that if auto racing were as dangerous today as it was back in the 50s, we certainly would be seeing lots of government mandates about auto racing safety. (Did you know that if a race car driver at Le Mans crashes, the gendarmes must give them an alcohol test?)

Question for you - in your opinion should we allow individuals to freely choose to murder children?

Handgun marksmanship. Different calibers behave differently, etc...

So allow... well, anything you want. From throwing knives to miniguns to RPGs. But they can never, ever leave the gun range, under penalty of instant death. Certainly preserves, even expands upon, the enjoyment of target practice with firearms, doesn't it?

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by webbuzz

Would any firearms law have prevented the shooting? Most likely not.

We don't know that. The law worked and stopped him from buying a gun. If there were laws on storage of guns in the home, it's possible he would not have been able to obtain his mother's weapons.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by elistan

Can you tell me what it means to be an anarchist? I'm not sure I'm clear on what your philosophical beliefs are. (And what do you mean "not practically?" As in, you don't approve of preventing the ownership of opium, but you understand the practicality of preventing the ownership of opium, and therefore support preventing the ownership of opium?)

Well there are variations, but in the popular culture classic sense it means to be rid of government, or somebody who does not think the government should exist, etc...

Originally Posted by elistan

Oh, yes, certainly abitrary unless you posit some moral authority that dictates these things, like a deity. But there's certainly a force that must be reckoned with if enough people with similar convictions get together and decide to act. I was describing how the members of that grouping feel, not trying to justify it.

Ok, well as long as all acknowledge that people are acting irrationally than it's all good.

Originally Posted by elistan

Yes, it's true that people apply the "even a single death is too many" to one cause of death, yet are completely blase to deaths from a different cause. Usually it happens if people find worth in the latter cause (driving, candle light, sliced bread, etc.) but not the former (guns, RPGs, etc.) Different people have different standards and different morals. I can't explain it, I'm no philosopher. <shrug>

I can explain it. It's just arbitrary and whimsical. You see it on TV, so, now you think it's bad.

It's not like 9000 people weren't dying every year before these school shootings. You just didn't hear about them on the news, because they were inner city.

Originally Posted by elistan

Yep. That's society for ya. (Unless, like I said, you posit a moral authority that dictates right and wrong.) We're a bunch of people acting in a somewhat coordinated manner. Better hope the society's values match your own.

Yeah, I mean it's kind of like saying well I sure hope this barbarians don't kill me.

Originally Posted by elistan

I thought you said you didn't hold much stock in the 2nd Amendment justification for owning firearms? (I'm honestly confused. Read enough semi-anonymous posts on the Internet and I sometimes forget who said what. Especially when some screen names can be so similar.)

I don't hold any stock in the 2nd Amendment. It's just as worthless as the Constitution is.

Originally Posted by elistan

Anyway, you say that there is pleasure to be had from shooting guns. No argument here. But my question in response is - is there a way to preserve that pleasure while significantly reducing the number of deaths from those guns? I say there is.

That's not the question. The question really is:

Do you have a right to tell other people what they can and cannot buy?

That's the underlying philosophical contest here.

Originally Posted by elistan

Maybe we can come up with something like the Scoville to quantify it.

I don't know what that is.

Originally Posted by elistan

Well duh. That's my opinion, and much of society's opinion. And society's opinion carries a great deal of weight. One opinion, for example, is that murder is wrong. And, without some authority figure saying so, that opinion is just arbitrary as well. Not much you can do about it except try to change every individual member of society's opinion. As I said, "tough tooties" otherwies.

Well, I guess when people are upset about gay marriage not being legal we should just say "tough tooties", that's what society wants, and societies opinion carries a great deal of weight?

Originally Posted by elistan

I suspect that if auto racing were as dangerous today as it was back in the 50s, we certainly would be seeing lots of government mandates about auto racing safety. (Did you know that if a race car driver at Le Mans crashes, the gendarmes must give them an alcohol test?)

ok

Originally Posted by elistan

Question for you - in your opinion should we allow individuals to freely choose to murder children?

That's off topic don't you think?

Originally Posted by elistan

So allow... well, anything you want. From throwing knives to miniguns to RPGs. But they can never, ever leave the gun range, under penalty of instant death. Certainly preserves, even expands upon, the enjoyment of target practice with firearms, doesn't it?

I say we just let people own whatever they want

[elistan]

Originally Posted by webbuzz

Would any firearms law have prevented the shooting? Most likely not.

Again, until the investigation records are released, discussion regarding prevention is speculative.

Speculative, yes. But not without merit. We can assume certain conditions, then ask "what effect would action X then have?" even if those assumed conditions turn out to not match the reality of Adam Larza's situation. Or Kyle's situation, since this is a thread about his murder.

Anyway, if you feel that no law you would be comfortable having enacted would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting or Kyle's murder, would you be willing to state that such events, while certainly regrettable, are an acceptable cost of firearm ownership?

[webbuzz]

Originally Posted by rdowns

We don't know that. The law worked and stopped him from buying a gun. If there were laws on storage of guns in the home, it's possible he would not have been able to obtain his mother's weapons.

I agree we don't know.

Do we know how her firearms were stored? No we don't.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by webbuzz

I agree we don't know.

Do we know how her firearms were stored? No we don't.

I'm still wondering how that's supposed to be enforced?

Ah... I can see it now. The ATF thugs show up (since you're on the gun database) and inspect your house, looking for illegal guns, and making sure you are storing them up to standard.

Maybe they can make sure you are storing alcohol and cigarettes properly too so minors can't obtain them.