4 ms·

> It's much easier to kill a person with a gun than a KitchenAid mixer. KitchenAid makes knives as well. > Also, most US states make one pass a test to prove

> It's much easier to kill a person with a gun than a KitchenAid mixer. KitchenAid makes knives as well. > Also, most US states make one pass a test to prove that one is capable of operating an automobile to some minimum standard of "not killing people". How many car thefts are there per year? What makes you think that that process you describe for a test to prove one is capable of operating an automobile ensures that car won't be used as a weapon? If anything, it ensures that person with such intentions is properly trained at using the car up to the point of using it as a weapon. Even if those test do somehow check for "minimum standard of not killing people", Why do you think someone who just wants a car to be used as a weapon would put herself through those tests instead of stealing one? You must grant that stopping people from committing crimes is an unsolved hard problem. It's OK to work on that problem, what's not OK is to act as if it is a solved problem. Till the problem is solved, we must allow people to have an option to defend themselves with guns if they are so inclined.

maxerickson 9y ago
Why can't we make statistical decisions about tools based on the sort of capabilities that they provide and the trade offs that come with those capabilities?
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  Because communal goals can't trump individual freedoms. Communal goals must maintain freedoms that our battle tested constitutional rights guarantee. I am fine with such analysis. But, we must keep above guidelines in mind when looking at pros/cons that the analysis reveals. You may say 500 accidental deaths are not too many and we should take away rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States Each homicide is where the victim could have availed the option of defending self with guns. Whether such attempt to defend was successful or not, doesn't matter. What matters is that we as society didn't stop that person from having that option. 4.9 homicides per 100k people, that's 16,170 opportunities where a person could have used that option but failed. Then there are incidents where threat of gun stops a homicide. Is 500 accidents are OK as a cost? First of all, I don't agree that gun accidents are a cost that we are paying for having gun rights, there could be knife accidents or bow/arrow accidents if guns are banned. I look at it differently, imagine if you can go to each of those homicides as it is in progress, hit stop button on the time machine and tell the victim that please realize that you use to have an option to defend yourself in this situation with a gun, but we intentionally took it away because few other people were careless in their use of guns. Do you find it ethical to do that? I don't. And therein lies my stand on this. Play it little differently, imagine each successful use of gun to defend oneself or their loved ones. Using time machine, do you feel comfortable going back to each such incident, take the gun away from the victim and ask them to use the phone instead. If you go back enough in time, then there wouldn't be phone, you would have to ask them to fight with frying pan. Can you do that? If not, how is the situation different today? How can we ask someone to not defend themselves and face a more powerful adversary with bare hands? Are you ok with people dying or being raped or looted where they had used guns successfully to avoid those outcomes? If you are ok with it then how are you not the enemy of those people?
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Yeah, modifying the Constitution is the way to really get it done. As far as whether I am okay designing policy using statistics, even if there are two sides to those statistics, with horrible anecdotes on the side the policy impacts negatively, the answer is yes.
    - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
      Welcome to Eugenics!
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        Do you think this is a good argument? I didn't say that policy should exclusively consider statistics, I just meant that one sided anecdotes don't invalidate statistics.
        AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
        I think it was a very valid argument, otherwise I wouldn't have made it. You can take time to re-read and think about it more. Let's try one more way... We may know all the statistics of every baseball player that make up both teams. But, we can't declare winner based on stats alone. We still have to go out there and play the game. If we ban guns based on stats, then it would be equivalent to asking baseball players to not use bats during the game... because stats!!! What's the point of taking bats to the game, you are going to lose anyway. Right? I may not take on a professional baseball team, my decision. Someone may decide to do just that, they may succeed, they may not. Should they not play because of stats? Should they not carry bats to the ballpark because of stats? Should the society stop the game from happening, outlawing it but declaring winner at the same time, because of stats? That is the equivalent of society banning guns from citizens. You declare the criminal who carries gun anyway an automatic winner, you don't let the citizen have a chance at the game, you use force (police) to stop citizen from attempting to play.
        9y ago

maxerickson 9y ago

Why can't we make statistical decisions about tools based on the sort of capabilities that they provide and the trade offs that come with those capabilities?

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Because communal goals can't trump individual freedoms. Communal goals must maintain freedoms that our battle tested constitutional rights guarantee. I am fine with such analysis. But, we must keep above guidelines in mind when looking at pros/cons that the analysis reveals. You may say 500 accidental deaths are not too many and we should take away rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States Each homicide is where the victim could have availed the option of defending self with guns. Whether such attempt to defend was successful or not, doesn't matter. What matters is that we as society didn't stop that person from having that option. 4.9 homicides per 100k people, that's 16,170 opportunities where a person could have used that option but failed. Then there are incidents where threat of gun stops a homicide. Is 500 accidents are OK as a cost? First of all, I don't agree that gun accidents are a cost that we are paying for having gun rights, there could be knife accidents or bow/arrow accidents if guns are banned. I look at it differently, imagine if you can go to each of those homicides as it is in progress, hit stop button on the time machine and tell the victim that please realize that you use to have an option to defend yourself in this situation with a gun, but we intentionally took it away because few other people were careless in their use of guns. Do you find it ethical to do that? I don't. And therein lies my stand on this. Play it little differently, imagine each successful use of gun to defend oneself or their loved ones. Using time machine, do you feel comfortable going back to each such incident, take the gun away from the victim and ask them to use the phone instead. If you go back enough in time, then there wouldn't be phone, you would have to ask them to fight with frying pan. Can you do that? If not, how is the situation different today? How can we ask someone to not defend themselves and face a more powerful adversary with bare hands? Are you ok with people dying or being raped or looted where they had used guns successfully to avoid those outcomes? If you are ok with it then how are you not the enemy of those people?
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Yeah, modifying the Constitution is the way to really get it done. As far as whether I am okay designing policy using statistics, even if there are two sides to those statistics, with horrible anecdotes on the side the policy impacts negatively, the answer is yes.
  - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
    Welcome to Eugenics!
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      Do you think this is a good argument? I didn't say that policy should exclusively consider statistics, I just meant that one sided anecdotes don't invalidate statistics.
      - AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
        I think it was a very valid argument, otherwise I wouldn't have made it. You can take time to re-read and think about it more. Let's try one more way... We may know all the statistics of every baseball player that make up both teams. But, we can't declare winner based on stats alone. We still have to go out there and play the game. If we ban guns based on stats, then it would be equivalent to asking baseball players to not use bats during the game... because stats!!! What's the point of taking bats to the game, you are going to lose anyway. Right? I may not take on a professional baseball team, my decision. Someone may decide to do just that, they may succeed, they may not. Should they not play because of stats? Should they not carry bats to the ballpark because of stats? Should the society stop the game from happening, outlawing it but declaring winner at the same time, because of stats? That is the equivalent of society banning guns from citizens. You declare the criminal who carries gun anyway an automatic winner, you don't let the citizen have a chance at the game, you use force (police) to stop citizen from attempting to play.
        9y ago