Guns... My opinion what's yours?

"

Shovelcut wrote:

in certain parts of the US hunting is a family/cultural tradition and a necessity to survive.

Arguments from culture or tradition are as terrible as they get. "We should do this because we do this" and "we should do this because we have done this" are worthless statements. They say literally nothing about whether or not the thing is actually good.

There are also, as far as I am aware, zero people in the US who require hunting to survive. We have systems in place to help people survive who can't afford to do so themselves. If a homeless person is not dying of starvation, Backwoods Jimmy sure as hell doesn't have to hunt to eat.

"

Shovelcut wrote:

in certain parts of the US were you to take away all the guns you'll have no way of managing the wildlife.

As an ethical vegan, I could give many responses pointing out the flaws here due to how frequently I see similar arguments. Google something like "vegan arguments against deer population control" (those exact words work fine) if you want to learn more about the flaws in this idea. I'll just say two things. In many places, the deer population is being artificially raised in order to have enough deer for people to kill with guns. There are also highly effective sterilization programs used in some places where there is a legitimately high deer population that negatively affects humans.

You will not often find problems where murder is the optimal solution, be it the murder of individuals or of large portions of a species.

"

Jennik wrote:

Arguments from culture or tradition are as terrible as they get. "We should do this because we do this" and "we should do this because we have done this" are worthless statements. They say literally nothing about whether or not the thing is actually good.

This concept of "good", is it measurable and intrinsic, or is it a cultural phenomenon derived from tradition and social taboo? What you define as good, may not be what someone else defines as good, and without tradition and culture, any kind of moral agreement is just happenstance.

"

Jennik wrote:

There are also, as far as I am aware, zero people in the US who require hunting to survive.

There are zero people that I know of outside the US who require the internet to survive :P


I know of people that have survived for a few years off of their hunting. One lived under an interstate overpass and whatever people threw in the trash was what he had to work with. The city eventually evicted him and tried to put him on public aid. He lost the will to live after that.

I know of one that still does survive by his hunting. He collects mushrooms to sell to pay the electric bill for his two freezers and a little pocket change for necessities. He does the odd handyman job for the landowner to justify squatting on a piece of property. Even something as basic as toothpaste is out of his budget. He doesn't want charity or a handout, whether from agencies or friends and family.

"

Jennik wrote:

We have systems in place to help people survive who can't afford to do so themselves. If a homeless person is not dying of starvation, Backwoods Jimmy sure as hell doesn't have to hunt to eat.

We have newspapers and books to help people get information that can't afford to go to college. Urban Ulysses sure as heck doesn't need to log in to learn.

The British... Japanese... Etc... Got their butts whooped because of the second Amendment. I am currently educating myself and going to take classes before getting my permit to carry a concealed weapon. I can tell you right now I won't be purchasing a class 4 weapon there's absolutely no need. A small pistol is sufficient to ward off any threat.

I would never let any form of government dictate on how I may protect myself. Where's the freedom in that? People who are against guns or feel don't need one are usually the ones that cry wolf.

However some people are just too freaking stupid to carry one, example:


"Who goes there?!"

-Wheres your safe in the house?!"

"Mr. Robber can you wait for me, instead of placing my gun inside my night stand I put it in the safe."

-?!

"

DalaiLama wrote:

This concept of "good", is it measurable and intrinsic, or is it a cultural phenomenon derived from tradition and social taboo? What you define as good, may not be what someone else defines as good, and without tradition and culture, any kind of moral agreement is just happenstance.

We have highly evolved brains. Those of us who use them well can find actual good reasons why we should or should not do certain things. Logic, reason, and rational thought are what we should use to define what is or is not good.

Culture is what people do. Tradition is what people have done for a period of time. The idea that we can derive any value of "good" from these things is nonsensical. It's irrelevant what an individual thinks of as "good." What matters is why the individual thinks that.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

He doesn't want charity or a handout, whether from agencies or friends and family.

"Here's some food. Now you don't have to murder others and eat their corpses."

"I don't want no handouts. I'mma kill dudes instead."

This does nothing to disprove my point that nobody needs to hunt to survive in America. If you are attempting to defend the claim that anyone in America needs to hunt in order to survive, you need to pick better examples.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

We have newspapers and books to help people get information that can't afford to go to college. Urban Ulysses sure as heck doesn't need to log in to learn.

What are you even attempting to accomplish with remarks like these? We are having a conversation specifically about gun ownership. Hunting was specifically brought up as a defense of gun ownership. I was demonstrating why it is a particularly shitty defense. Why would you think nonsense like what you said here and your internet crack are remotely relevant here?

.

"

raics wrote:

Not. Bloody. Likely.

It's ok if you're ignorant to our wildlife populations, until you've had one walking through your yard you can think what you want. :P

"

raics wrote:

When they start with the US degunning they should probably take away your driver's license too.

"

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there are about 1 million car accidents with deer each year that kill 200 Americans, cause more than 10,000 personal injuries, and result in $1 billion in vehicle damage.

As far as running over a gator...

When you're driving down a road that's surrounded by miles of marshland on each side in the middle of a foggy summer night, yeah, it can happen.

Car was coming from the other way and I didn't see the gator until I was right up on it. My choices were hit the oncoming car head on or drive straight into the gator laden marsh or run over the 10+ foot alligator. So yeah...

"

Jennik wrote:

As an ethical vegan

Stopped reading there...arguments from a vegan standpoint are as pointless as it gets in this discussion. Besides, deer aren't the only wildlife populations that need controlling.

"

Jennik wrote:

This does nothing to disprove my point that nobody needs to hunt to survive in America. If you are attempting to defend the claim that anyone in America needs to hunt in order to survive, you need to pick better examples.

People who live in far out rural areas have to sustain themselves somehow. A few easy examples are people who live in Alaska and some parts here in Louisiana and also the mountain men.

I personally know people who maintain themselves solely off the land. Whether it be off fishing, hunting deer or trapping hogs (or a combination of all 3 really) as I've said before it's a cultural tradition in some places and will continue to be with each passing generation.

"

Shovelcut wrote:

As far as running over a gator...

When you're driving down a road that's surrounded by miles of marshland on each side in the middle of a foggy summer night, yeah, it can happen.

Car was coming from the other way and I didn't see the gator until I was right up on it. My choices were hit the oncoming car head on or drive straight into the gator laden marsh or run over the 10+ foot alligator. So yeah...

Shit, here I thought it was an accident but it was in fact a cold-blooded murder. Dunno how can you sleep at night, I really don't.

"

raics wrote:

"

Shovelcut wrote:

As far as running over a gator...

When you're driving down a road that's surrounded by miles of marshland on each side in the middle of a foggy summer night, yeah, it can happen.

Car was coming from the other way and I didn't see the gator until I was right up on it. My choices were hit the oncoming car head on or drive straight into the gator laden marsh or run over the 10+ foot alligator. So yeah...

Shit, here I thought it was an accident but it was in fact a cold-blooded murder. Dunno how can you sleep at night, I really don't.

LOL I sleep just fine.

Didn't screw up the company vehicle (aside from needing to get a few new tires and the wheels re-aligned hehe) and got some nice air off the gator ramp. :P

"

Shovelcut wrote:

"

Jennik wrote:

As an ethical vegan

Stopped reading there...

Willful ignorance is not a good look, but hey, maybe you can make it work.

"

Shovelcut wrote:

arguments from a vegan standpoint are as pointless as it gets in this discussion.

My arguments are not related to veganism in the slightest, which really should have been quite obvious to you. I mentioned I am vegan to clue you in on why I hear dumb arguments like this so often and why I'm so familiar with many incredibly obvious rebuttals to them.

Don't let your distaste for an ethical position blind you to reality. Pay attention to the actual arguments used instead of dismissing them wholly based on who's saying them.

"

Shovelcut wrote:

I personally know people who maintain themselves solely off the land. Whether it be off fishing, hunting deer or trapping hogs (or a combination of all 3 really) as I've said before it's a cultural tradition in some places and will continue to be with each passing generation.

Who you know and what they choose to unnecessarily do is irrelevant. They don't need to hunt to survive. They choose to hunt. A choice to do something and a need to do something are not remotely equivalent.

Again, appeals to culture and tradition are worthless and devoid of a single shred of merit. Slavery was part of American culture. It was a tradition that lasted for hundreds of years. Anyone attempting to defend slavery by appealing to culture or tradition would sound pretty damn stupid, though.

You simply can't tell if something is good or bad, whether we should or should not do it, based on the simple fact that it's currently being done or has a history of being done before. This is trivia, not an argument.

"

Jennik wrote:

We have highly evolved brains. Those of us who use them well can find actual good reasons why we should or should not do certain things. Logic, reason, and rational thought are what we should use to define what is or is not good.

I'm not questioning those things can be used to determine what an individual feels is right or wrong. I am saying that what people decide is right or wrong based on their reasoning will vary.

Take this thread. Some people believe it is a higher good to have guns restricted by the logic that their will be less harm done to society at large. Others believe it is a higher good for guns to be less regulated by the logic that freedom of choice, self protection, and they feel society at large would suffer less harm if more people were armed.

In other words, morals are not a priori.

I'm not questioning that most people have a lot of agreement about what is right and wrong. If you asked a lot of people whether torturing was ok, most would say no. Most of us don't like pain, and most people empathize with others and don't like seeing them in pain. That doesn't mean all people don't like seeing others in pain or actually harming them. It also doesn't mean some people don't enjoy pain themselves. Then there are those who just don't empathize with others and couldn't care less whether someone else feels pain. So where is the logic they would follow to determine torture is wrong?

Furthermore, what does it matter if you and I and 95 other people feel that torture is wrong to the three people who don't? The collective thought process of the group is what becomes culture, social influence, tradition, laws etc.

If you are talking about moral anarchism, then yes, it is possible for everyone to derive their own ideas of what is good and bad. I'm sure Omar Mateen thought he was doing a good thing by hurting and killing people that he thought were "wrong", and/or he felt that the wronging against him was enough to justify his actions.

I'm not a subscriber to cultural relativism at all, but to think that millions or billions of people will individually and collectively arrive at the same set of moral rights and wrongs without the collective efforts of society working through culture and tradition flies in the face of reality and history.

"

Jennik wrote:

Culture is what people do. Tradition is what people have done for a period of time. The idea that we can derive any value of "good" from these things is nonsensical.

We have traditions by which we raise children. Not hitting or hurting others is one of those that is usually taught. If someone never teaches a child to not be selfish or mean to others, that child will turn into someone who can't function in society and will have a completely different set of morals.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

He doesn't want charity or a handout, whether from agencies or friends and family.

"Here's some food. Now you don't have to murder others and eat their corpses."

"I don't want no handouts. I'mma kill dudes instead."

This does nothing to disprove my point that nobody needs to hunt to survive in America. If you are attempting to defend the claim that anyone in America needs to hunt in order to survive, you need to pick better examples.

Let's look at this logically. Do you need anything? No. You can choose not to breathe, eat, or whatever. Do you need love? Do you need clothes? Do you need internet access?

If you asked many people if they needed a cell phone, they would tell you yes, they NEED it, because of all the ways they rely on it.

They made that choice to rely on their phone. Someone else made a choice to wear clothes. Someone else made a choice to accept a handout. Someone else made a choice that they need to live in a nice new house.

There are cultural and traditional and physical and emotional needs of various levels. What one person values over others will vary. Some people will value their health over their job. Some will value their family and work themselves into the grave to take care of their family.

You used "ethical vegan" to describe yourself, so you have placed a certain amount of value on that. Others may or may not share that value, so now you have an ethical dilemma unless you are using some form of culture

"Culture (/ˈkʌltʃər/) is, in the words of E.B. Tylor,[undue weight? – discuss] "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society."[1] Alternatively, in a contemporary variant, 'Culture is defined as a social domain that emphasizes the practices, discourses, and material expressions, which, over time, express the continuities and discontinuities of social meaning of a life held in common.'[2]

Cambridge English Dictionary states that culture is, "the way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time."[3] Terror Management Theory posits that culture is a series of activities and worldviews that provide humans with the basis for perceiving themselves as "person of worth within the world of meaning"—raising themselves above the merely physical aspects of existence, in order to deny the animal insignificance and death that Homo Sapiens became aware of when they acquired a larger brain.[4][5]"


[quote="DalaiLama"]We have newspapers and books to help people get information that can't afford to go to college. Urban Ulysses sure as heck doesn't need to log in to learn.[/quote]

[quote="Jennik"]
What are you even attempting to accomplish with remarks like these? We are having a conversation specifically about gun ownership. [/quote]

You used logic as one of the premises for determining what is good or bad. If someone needed a gun to survive, would that make gun ownership acceptable?

I was showing that the logic of your statements (someone doesn't need a gun to survive)
was faulty in the same logical construct. People don't need many of the things they have in life, but that lack of necessity does not make them right or wrong. There are some logical camps that think morality is absolute and circumstance never factors into whether an action is right or wrong, while others think the situation matters more.

Feminist ethics says the obverse of moral absolutism, and that the situation and relationships matter more.
Feminist ethics specifically denies that logic and abstract ideas are the best determinant of moral decisions, and that by relying on our relationships with others and the specifics of the interaction, we can best determine what is right or wrong.

No, I'm not talking about feminism, there is a body of ethical theory called feminist ethics with sound foundations and logic behind it

[quote="DalaiLama"]Hunting was specifically brought up as a defense of gun ownership.[/quote]

If we are thinking logically, than whether someone needs something or not doesn't make it morally good or bad. That's a situational ethics decision. The meth addict who needs a fix is thereby justified by robbing a senior citizen to get his fix.

[quote="DalaiLama"] I was demonstrating why it is a particularly shitty defense. Why would you think nonsense like what you said here and your internet crack are remotely relevant here?[/quote]

You are looking at things from a very narrow and one sides perspective. Just because you don't see the tails on the other side of the coin doesn't mean only heads exists.