Sunday School

Sunday School September 10th 2023

This topic contains 77 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  TheEncogitationer 8 months, 4 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 78 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #50157

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Autumn wrote, ” You are conflating whether people deserve criticism with whether or not they deserve bigotry.”

    Not so.

    #50158


    Participant

    If not, then pedophiles have no relevance. The recipient of the bigotry doesn’t salvage bigotry or reframe it.

    #50159

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Autumn i do not follow your comment.

    #50160


    Participant

    You question asked if my defence would be the same if the target were child molesters as if who the target was had some bearing on the bigotry in question. Why would it change? Why would who the target is matter? If it doesn’t matter, then what’s the point of the question? If you understood the argument I was putting forward then the question had already answered itself.

    #50162

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    we should be concerned about acting rationally and in accordance with duty to moral principles.

    Think about it: It also presupposes a preexisting moral sense.

    Kant’s rational moral principles are his Categorical Imperatives.  I think he presupposes desirable goals or goods.

    #50168

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Unseen,

    One of the big reasons given to justify people having guns is for self protection.

    Where is the statistic showing that a significant number of those killed and wounded by guns became statistics due to some gun owner protecting him/herself?

    If there is one, I believe you’ll find it’s somewhere in the single digits painfully close to 0%.

    Here are the latest statistics on defensive uses of firearms in the United States:

    How Often Are Guns Used in Self Defense? | Stats [2023]
    Last Updated on: March 31, 2023 by American Gun Facts Staff

    How Often Are Guns Used in Self Defense? | Stats [2023]

    According to this article:

    The best estimates are that guns are used to deter or thwart crime between 500,000 and 2.8 million times per year, but the more likely answer is probably somewhere in the middle. A 2021 survey2 estimated that guns are used 1.67 million times per year in self defense in the United States.

    My suspicion is that it might be more than this because the statistics are partially based upon testimonial from surveys and media and police reports. Not every gun owner answers gun surveys or report crimes against them and many probably don’t. Also, many gun owners who have used guns for self-defense are not inclined to talk about it to anyone.

    This could be either because self-defending gun owners don’t want to be targeted for either lawsuits or criminal retaliation from the family, friends, spouses, lovers, or fellow gangsters of the criminals who are foiled, or because self-defending gun owners don’t want a reputation as “Jack The Giant Killer” expected to fight crime all the time, or because self-defending gun owners are just humble people who don’t seek a limelight.

    Anyway, according to the survey, in 81.9 percent of incidents where firearms are used in self-defense, the gun is merely referenced in conversation or merely presented. Only in 18.1 percent of incidents of self-defense with firearms is the firearm actually fired.

    No word on how many criminals are injured or killed as a result of firing firearms in self-defense, but either way, it is a good thing for those who use of firearms for self-defense and those who love and rely upon them.

    And since firearms were used in crimes 480,000 times a year in 2019, this means that the use of firearms in self-defense is double to triple or greater than criminal uses of firearms and vastly greater than the number of murders or suicides with firearms.

    Again, no hope of changing minds here, just letting the facts stand as is.

    #50169

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Simon,

    Deontological theories of ethics such as Kant’s never satisfied me. After all, humans are beings in a Natural Universe with Cause and Effect and are living beings whose acts have consequences and who act upon potential gains and harms to their own life and flourishing and that of others. It is ridiculous to insist that humans disregard consequences entirely.

    #50171


    Participant

    Defensive gun use statistics vary considerably study to study. It’s not necessarily the fault of researchers—it’s a difficult thing to quantify. Issues like selection bias, poor sampling, underreporting, false positives can all potentially swing numbers way up and way down.

    False positives tend to be a major concern of mine. For instance, if I get in a heated argument with someone and they pull a gun, I’m unlikely to continue arguing past that point. From my perspective, this person is committing a crime by brandishing their firearm. From their perspective, however, they may have thwarted a potential assault without having to fire a single round. Now, because I placed myself in this hypothetical, I know there was no impending assault. But for any third party observers, they wouldn’t know that. Scenarios with heightened aggression and emotion are very unpredictable.

    When we’re dealing with self-reporting, I don’t really know how researchers account for that bias or determine its likelihood. This is a situation where the interviewee has incentive to rationalize their side of the story.

    It’s not strictly a one way street. Some measure of reported gun crimes could be overreactions to the presence of a firearm. Again, self-reporting may result in non-crimes being reported as crimes.

    The point being, coming up with accurate numbers is going to be tricky. Estimates range from the tens of thousands to millions of cases of defensive gun use. Even if we simplified cost/ benefit only by looking at defensive gun use versus criminal gun use, that discrepancy matters a lot. When we get into more complex considerations, it matters more.

    #50172

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Autumn, Davis, Jake, and Fellow Unbelievers,

    I recently read in Prepper Magazine something that has some bearing here:

    Don’t teach children about “stranger danger.” Most people only have a circle of relatives, friends, co-workers, and acquaintances that doesn’t exceed 150, so teaching them to automatically fear strangers is no way to live on a Planet of 8 billion+ strangers.

    Instead, teach them to be situationally aware of and learn of acts, behaviors, incidents, and phenomena, including those that just aren’t right.

    Don’t automatically make assumptions about someone who has an Arabic, Persian, or Middle Eastern-sounding name or from a majority-Muslim nation or even with traditional Muslim dress.

    Do observe their words and deeds and if the words and deeds are peaceful and honest, let them be, and if the words and deeds are suspicious, defer to law enforcement bound by rules of due process, and if facing imminent threat to Life, Liberty, and Property, act upon the principles of Avoid, Deny, and Defend.

    As long as there is an Islamic religion that doesn’t get along with it’s neighbors, yet also has imperfect everyday members who are just along for a ride, that’s how we have to deal with it while being civilized at the same time.

    • This reply was modified 9 months ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling and spacing
    #50174

    Unseen
    Participant

    @Enco

    States with weaker gun laws have higher rates of firearm related homicides and suicides, study finds

    In short, where gun control is weak, there are more gun-related homicides. Look at the map in the article.

    But you’ve done that classic tactic of distracting rather than answering. You’ve also moved the goal post from the end of the field to a sideline.

    I’m sure that guns prevent a certain amount of crime, but they might turn a simple assault, where both parties walk away alive into a homicide situation. There are other ways with which to defend yourself unless the othere person has the gun. It would be better if the other person didn’t have a gun. That’s the goal.

    Not only do strict gun laws work in the United States, they work around the world. The examples are so numberous you’d have to be a total imbecile with your head up your ass not to be aware of them.

    Maybe the problem isn’t guns. It’s us. As Yoda famously once said, “As American as apple pie, violence is.” America IS a culture of violence. And it will remain so as long as people like you would rather adapt to it than fix it. How about adapting to it WHILE fixing it? Isn’t a country with far fewer guns a worthy goal?

    BTW, along with the increasing frequency of mass shootings, in the last couple years we passed another milestone (gall stone?): Death by gun surpassed death in car crashes for our children age 1-19. Maybe if we gave our kids guns to defend themselves with, the could go back to dying in cars instead(?).

    #50177

    jakelafort
    Participant

    “You question asked if my defence would be the same if the target were child molesters as if who the target was had some bearing on the bigotry in question. Why would it change? Why would who the target is matter? If it doesn’t matter, then what’s the point of the question? If you understood the argument I was putting forward then the question had already answered itself.”

    defence? You’ve been attending a great many sporting events. I can see the fence. But can i see the forest for the fence?

    As i indicated to Davis i was “curious to see whether Autumn was more an apologist for Islam/Muslims or had principles that would carry over. The answer was as i expected.” For the average Joe or Jane it is a legit query. Very few have the sort of equanimity and ratiocination to be so principled or so i would imagine.

    I wonder if there is a bridge too far. Lets suppose a serial rapist/torturer/murderer was experiencing irrational bigotry and antipathy. Would a term like Habitualrapistorturingmurdererpsychopathphobia be valid? Can an individual or idea(s) be so monstrous, evil, unspeakable, cruel that a term including phobia becomes absurd?

    #50179

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Deontological theories of ethics such as Kant’s never satisfied me. After all, humans are beings in a Natural Universe with Cause and Effect and are living beings whose acts have consequences and who act upon potential gains and harms to their own life and flourishing and that of others. It is ridiculous to insist that humans disregard consequences entirely.

    The two are unified if we think in terms of goals.  We don’t know what consequences are going to be, but we can have a goal – restoring or achieving mutual benefit.  Virtues or rules are tried and trusted ways of achieving the goal.  So, they’re good too.  More precisely, they possess normative pressure – we “should” follow them, because they’re in the service of achieving the goal.

    #50180

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Autumn,

    Defensive gun use statistics vary considerably study to study. It’s not necessarily the fault of researchers—it’s a difficult thing to quantify. Issues like selection bias, poor sampling, underreporting, false positives can all potentially swing numbers way up and way down.

    As the article so noted. The best anyone can do is go with known knowns.

    False positives tend to be a major concern of mine. For instance, if I get in a heated argument with someone and they pull a gun, I’m unlikely to continue arguing past that point. From my perspective, this person is committing a crime by brandishing their firearm. From their perspective, however, they may have thwarted a potential assault without having to fire a single round. Now, because I placed myself in this hypothetical, I know there was no impending assault. But for any third party observers, they wouldn’t know that. Scenarios with heightened aggression and emotion are very unpredictable.

    Well, since we’re dealing in hypotheticals, the accusation of pulling a gun in an argument could be as false as a claim of self-defense.

    When we’re dealing with self-reporting, I don’t really know how researchers account for that bias or determine its likelihood. This is a situation where the interviewee has incentive to rationalize their side of the story.

    Again, the other party can “rationalize” as well.

    It’s not strictly a one way street. Some measure of reported gun crimes could be overreactions to the presence of a firearm. Again, self-reporting may result in non-crimes being reported as crimes.

    The anti-gun crowd would be the ones most likely to turn harmless carrying of a firearm, or even non-carrying of a firearm, into a crime with a firearm. Zero-tolerance, anti-gun school teachers and administators already suspend kids from schools for merely drawing a picture of a gun or nibbling a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun.

    The point being, coming up with accurate numbers is going to be tricky. Estimates range from the tens of thousands to millions of cases of defensive gun use. Even if we simplified cost/ benefit only by looking at defensive gun use versus criminal gun use, that discrepancy matters a lot. When we get into more complex considerations, it matters more.

    One thing is for sure: 119 million+ U.S. Citizens do not engage in child sacrifice every time they manufacture, purchase, or own a firearm, as Ed Gaskin alleged in that junky article of his.

    #50182

    TheEncogitationer
    Participant

    Unseen,

    BTW, along with the increasing frequency of mass shootings, in the last couple years we passed another milestone (gall stone?): Death by gun surpassed death in car crashes for our children age 1-19. Maybe if we gave our kids guns to defend themselves with, the could go back to dying in cars instead(?).

    One small problem with this: Persons 18 and 19 years old are not legally children, but adults. When you adjust for this fact, then number of children killed by firearms in 2020 drops from 4357 to 2270, with auto accidents dropping from 4102 to nearly 2400.

    Are Guns the Leading Cause of Death for Children in the US?
    Motor vehicle-related crashes used to be the leading cause of death among children and teens.
    Nur Ibrahim
    Published Mar 29, 2023
    https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/03/29/guns-leading-deaths-children-us/

    While all of these deaths are tragic, the number of firearms deaths is still not greater than auto accidents and certainly are not the 119 million + child sacrifices allegedly committed by U.S. firearms manufacturers, dealers, and owners according to Ed Haskin.

    Moreover, how many childhood deaths by firearms comes from gangs recruiting minors to join the gangs and getting them in harm’s way?

    I want to fix violence in the U.S. too, but I don’t claim it comes from inanimate, non-living, non-conscious, amoral objects, nor do I attempt to blood-libel 119 million+ U.S. firearms owners who have nothing to do with initiating violence.

    #50183


    Participant

    As the article so noted. The best anyone can do is go with known knowns.

    The whole point is that there isn’t away to do that reliably. If you only go with accurately reported incidents, you’d get an underestimate, but if you conduct surveys prone to selection bias or inaccurate accounts then you’ll go over. Different methodologies are producing wildly varying numbers.

    Well, since we’re dealing in hypotheticals, the accusation of pulling a gun in an argument could be as false as a claim of self-defense.

    You mean the very thing I said myself? Yes, I am aware.

    One thing is for sure: 119 million+ U.S. Citizens do not engage in child sacrifice every time they manufacture, purchase, or own a firearm, as Ed Gaskin alleged in that junky article of his.

    I neither know the author nor the article in question. I would be surprised if that were a literal claim. As far as rhetoric goes… meh.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 78 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.