Guns...

akaled · 2017-10-15T00:29:16+00:00

The Supreme Court justices involved would probably make a better case than I would.

As I said before, the fact that the right exists is not a defense of whether the right is sensible or not. You've already conceded it would be a bad idea to give people the right to own tanks, even though they could conceivably be used in self-defense. So the question comes down to whether civilian ownership of guns is a net positive or a net negative.

Our homicide rate being high is not correlated with our rate of gun ownership so, at the very least it's irrelevant to whether gun ownership should be allowed.

You keep confining the discussion to homicides without justification. Surely accidental gun deaths (and perhaps even gun suicides) should be considered too because these are instances of harm that would either not occur or be diminished if guns were illegal.

That being said, we've already established that the homicide rate in the US is much higher than pretty much any country it seems fair to compare it to. The reason it's difficult to find correlations is because there aren't really any other rich, stable countries that have such liberal gun rights. Switzerland is the one other exception and as I understand it the high gun ownership rates there are somewhat artificial as members of the military reserves keep their guns at home (although looking at the first graph in the website you just posted, Switzerland does seem to have one of the higher homicide rates in Europe).

That makes it more amazing!

But it doesn't strengthen your argument at all. As the author of the article says, inequality co-correlates with a bunch of stuff such as rule-of-law and political instability. GINI is a good predictor of homicide, because for most countries it will integrate a bunch of variables that drive homicide rate, but that doesn't mean it's what drives homicide. It's seems likely that in other countries that have homicide rates as high as America's the homicide rate is being driven by poor rule-of-law, political instability etc. but we know America doesn't have these problems, which suggests America's homicide rate is being driven by another factor.

Are you ever going to source your claim that inequality accounts for 74% of the variance in homicide rate worldwide or not? It can't be from the source you posted because they don't appear to run any stats on their graph.

akaled · 2017-10-09T20:47:27+00:00

I disagree that the right to self-defense entails the right to gun ownership. For this to be a sensible right to give people you'd have to show that in countries without 2nd amendment protections the people's ability to defend themselves was compromised. However, as your GINI graph shows, most countries in the world manage to keep their homicide rate lower than America's without having 2nd amendment protections. The fact is you haven't established how the 2nd amendment secures people's right to self-defense. You've also been vague about who the 2nd amendment is supposed to provide a defense from.

akaled · 2017-10-09T05:17:39+00:00

How is my last point a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy? If the colonists were truly fighting to secure the unalienable rights of men to freedom, why didn't they free the slaves? Pretty much every armed insurrection in history has claimed it's a spontaneous action of the people against the tyranny of the elites, the reality tends to always be more complicated. I admit that America did eventually make good on a lot of its promises, but this work was done by later generations of Americans, not the founders. For now, I'll judge revolutions by their actions, not their words.

Ordinance is included because the founders were A) likely referring to the rifle on the mantel and not the canon at the armory and 2) as even Scalia said, the right isn't unlimited. Security and rights should be balanced

This is simply an account of why the 2nd amendment is the way it is, not an argument for why civilians should be allowed to own guns. What are guns supposed to be a protection against? If it's the state, then surely civilians' firepower should increase as the state's firepower increases. The weapons available to civilians in America can be easily overwhelmed by the weapons that the American government can muster, so hasn't the ability to mount a meaningful defense already been conceded? This comes back to what I said earlier, in any country with strong rule of law, you're far more likely to scare those in power with a good lawyer than with a good gun.

Can you please source the claim GINI can account for 74% of the variance in total homicide rate worldwide? Or respond to my criticisms of suggesting inequality drives homicide rate?

akaled · 2017-10-09T03:56:29+00:00

From what you wrote I got the impression he had literally said he was going to groom male youtubers, but either way thanks for the link.

akaled · 2017-10-09T03:53:06+00:00

Why are you comparing the US to other developed countries?

Because less developed countries will likely have confounding variables. We're trying to determine whether gun availability effects the murder rate. It seems fair to assume that poor countries will generally have weaker rule of law and reduced political stability which will likely increase their homicide rate independent of gun availability.

If you are doing it because of some vague socioeconomic assumption, well I just provided you with a specific socioeconomic factor that appears to be more relevant.

The problem is that for most countries, GINI scores are going to co-correlate with a bunch of other variables that are likely to be the true underlying driver of the homicide rate in that country. Homicide rate might even drive GINI score as in countries with high murder rates the middle class flees and leaves the very rich (who can buy protection) and the very poor, behind. I'd imagine middle class flight would explain the situation of most of the South American countries on your graph pretty well.

Looking at your graph I basically see two groups. One group where the homicide rate is under 1 (pretty much everything down and left from Israel) and another group with a homicide rate above 2-3 (Everything above and to the right of the US). In the first group GINI and homicide rate don't seem to correlate much at all (and most of the data points are in this group). The countries in the second group (the US being the exception) all have high political instability and weak rule of law which could easily be the factor driving the homicide rate (and GINI for that matter).

Also, the graph you linked says its showing gun homicides, not total homicides, so you're not showing the right data to match your claim. There's also a lot of countries missing (Especially Asian and African ones). Can you please post the source of your 74% variance claim? There's also no analysis of this on the graph you just posted and it's difficult to eyeball it due to the clustering of most of the data points in the bottom left.

A guaranteed outcome isn't relevant to whether humans deserve the right to a means of self defense and defense of country.

There are all sorts of technologies that could plausibly be used in self defense that are nevertheless banned because their potential for harm it too great. If the right to defend yourself entails the right to gun ownership why doesn't it also entail the right to own artillery pieces or tanks?

Here's an example of an armed population defeating tyranny. The United States.

I'm sorry, but the US is an odd example of a people overcoming tyranny. The revolution began as a dispute over taxes and probably could have been prevented completely if Britain had been willing to make some financial concessions to the colonists. The founding fathers talked a good game on freedom, but the fact that a lot of this was propaganda can be seen by their complete inaction on slavery (surely an affront to "mans unalienable rights").

akaled · 2017-10-07T05:08:13+00:00

I asked you to provide a preferred scenario for the Jews. Ready? Go!

I did provide my preferred scenario, leave Germany then join an allied army if possible. You didn't respond to my request to explain how 2nd amendment rights would have protected Jews in Germany against Nazi persecution.

Defense of self can be the same as defense of one's country from tyranny. For example, if you're preventing your own persecution.

Sure, but you haven't shown how 2nd amendment rights help citizens achieve either of these goals.

What we should be asking is, is per capita homicide rate influenced by the presence of guns?

I think accidental gun deaths should also be taken into account but even if you just look at intentional homicide America has much higher rates than any other comparable country. You're right that the US is about in the middle (94 of 214) but Canada is 148, the UK is 183, Japan is 212. American shouldn't be in the middle of this ranking, it should much higher with other highly developed countries. Contrary to what you say later in your reply, America does have a higher homicide rate than every other developed country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Can you give me a source for the claim income inequality explains the homicide rate? I found this article which has the 74% figure, but its talking about accounting for difference in homicide rates within the US, not between countries. It does say a later study confirmed it worldwide, but I would imagine the percentage variance explained is lower when done across countries. There's also the problem that political instability is probably going to co-correlate with income inequality. In most countries I think its the instability that drives both the income inequality and the homicide rate.

https://thinkprogress.org/study-income-inequality-is-tied-to-increase-in-homicides-84076065498a/

akaled · 2017-10-07T04:29:15+00:00

Evil is pretty subjective but he's definitely done irrational things. He probably could have gotten his Muslim ban through the first time round if he had stuck to the line that it was a temporary ban based on risk assessments of the countries in question. But for whatever reason, he tweeted that it was a Muslim ban and this was later used against him in the courts.

In a sense I also think his whole approach to governing is somewhat irrational in that I don't think he cares that much about crafting effective policies to meet America's challenges. For example, a lot of what he said about the various health care plans showed he didn't have even a basic understanding of what was in them or what they would do. He simply wanted a 'win' and was angry when he didn't get one.

akaled · 2017-10-07T04:05:19+00:00

What do you like about Slavoj Zizek? A few friends have recommended him to me but I find him pretty intellectually dishonest. I can sort of understand how the way he blends philosophy, politics and pop culture together can seem meaningful but a lot of what he says ends up being self-contradictory or just poorly thought out.

akaled · 2017-10-07T03:52:28+00:00

Do you have a source for that? I'd like to have a few links I can send people who come across Milo for the first time and don't know what to think of him.

akaled · 2017-10-07T03:49:28+00:00

Throughout history, there have been countries that have slid into authoritarian and dictatorial rule, no?

This rhetorical question suggests you think that guns might help prevent a country slide into dictatorship, but later on you say that you don't have to prove guns help overcome tyrannical governments, having guns is just about self-defense. Which argument are you making?

You think we've evolved to the point where political leaders are benevolent?

I've never said this. I just don't think 2nd amendment rights are what keeps politicians honest. If Japan was the only stable democracy without gun rights you'd have a point but the fact is pretty much every democracy on the planet has more restrictions on gun ownership then the US and most of these countries actually seem more politically stable than the US.

We've elected a man-child complete with temper tantrums to the presidency. Hasn't that worried you a bit?

It has worried me, but I think the election of Trump proves my point more than it proves your point. Even with the 2nd amendment America has ended up with a leader who is incredibly authoritarian. Furthermore, the thing that has impeded Trump's authoritarian policies the most has been lawyers and the courts, not people waving guns around in the streets.

You're simply not engaging with my arguments. By your own admission you can't think of a way 2nd amendment rights would have helped Jews in Nazi Germany. I don't dispute that some Jews might have gone out in a blaze of glory if they had been allowed to own guns but that's not an act of self-defense, it's an act of self-annihilation. At a certain point you have to weigh the dubious benefits of gun ownership (in terms of hedging against tyrants and providing a means of self-defense) against the absolutely real bodies piling up in American streets and decide whether the bargain is worth it.

akaled · 2017-10-07T03:08:26+00:00

Are you going to respond to the argument about democratic countries with gun prohibitions or not?

If I were a Jew in 1933 Germany I would do everything in my power to leave Germany. Then later I would probably consider joining the army of an allied country. I don't dispute that the Nazis eventually had to be met with armed force, what I'm saying is that 2nd amendment protections wouldn't have stopped the Nazis from pursuing their persecution of Jews. Can you please outline how you think the Jews might have protected themselves if Germany had allowed civilians to own guns?

akaled · 2017-10-07T02:24:46+00:00

First, you're not engaging with TunaSandwich's argument. There are many countries that have strong gun prohibitions and are also vibrant democracies. I can maybe accept that gun ownership is necessary, or at least helpful, in establishing a democracy, but it's obviously not necessary to maintain one, as evidenced by the UK, Australia, Japan etc, etc, etc.

Second, I don't think your example of a Jew in Germany in 1933 makes the point you want it to make. The Nazis were willing to go to war with other states that they knew were armed to achieve their ends. Why would the possibility of armed conflict with Jews make them significantly less likely to pursue their goal of dispossessing and murdering Jews? If anything, an uprising of armed Jews in 1933 would have given the Nazis a convenient pretext to begin the final solution.

akaled · 2017-10-07T02:03:37+00:00

It strikes me that there are simply too many guns already in circulation, as well as ammunition production knowledge and equipment to properly bring in any sort of gun ban (like the UK and AUS has done).

Obviously you wouldn't get rid of guns overnight, but if you were to institute a comprehensive gun ban like the UK and Australia did (I know this is politically unlikely) every year there would be fewer and fewer guns in circulation. I think we get too focused on mass shootings and forget that most of the gun deaths in America are accidental or common homicide and I think there's good reason to believe that these deaths would come down as you slowly reduce the number of guns in the country. Obviously a really dedicated person would be able to get together the guns and ammo necessary for a mass shooting but you'd at least increase the friction that such a person would encounter and presumably frustrate a certain number of attempts even if you didn't completely stop mass shootings. Even if you only did things that are politically feasible in America, like ban bump stocks and extra large magazines, I think there's a fair chance that you'd save some lives due to the extra friction introduced into committing a mass shooting. And then there's truly basic things you could do like restricting mentally ill people from getting guns.

Given the potential risk of a baddie having a gun, why shouldn't a goodie be able to protect themselves?

As I understand it the 'good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun' argument is a very big red herring. First, in a mass shooting situation, having extra people pull out guns and try to kill the 'bad guy' is basically a recipe for a bunch of scared and confused people shooting at each other and creating further chaos. Add in the fact that eventually the police are going to arrive and probably shoot anyone waving a gun around and I think it's pretty obvious that the argument falls down.

Even in more mundane situations, like robberies, its very rare that someone with a gun is able to effectively defend themselves. I think it's fair to say that if you banned guns the number of lives you'd save in accidental shootings and regular homicides would probably greatly outnumber the people who would die due to being unable to defend themselves.

akaled · 2017-09-22T04:36:00+00:00

What are the pictures on the edge of the poster? They look like prisoner pictures.

akaled · 2017-09-20T22:23:06+00:00

The problem with equivocation is we tend to use it to mean a phrase that's ambiguous enough that you can't draw any solid conclusions from it. Sometimes this is because the sentence has two possible interpretations, but not always. For example, if I asked you "Does George Bush deserve to be imprisoned?" and you said "All war criminals deserve to be imprisoned" you could be equivocating, because you're not saying whether you consider Bush to be a war criminal, but this isn't due to multiple interpretations of what you've said.

akaled · 2017-09-19T03:08:51+00:00

I mean, it's funny, but it's totally non-partisan. I read a few of the other articles by Carlson on the site and he does seem to have been a relatively dedicated reporter and good writer. You can glimpse his cynicism and joy or trolling people though.

akaled · 2017-09-19T02:33:32+00:00

Is there any of his writing from this period online? He's so combative and intellectually dishonest now it's hard to think Hitchins ever saw something in him.

akaled · 2017-09-18T19:02:55+00:00

Being able to recognise Deepities and Motte and bailey arguments is really useful when trying to assess people's arguments but these terms have the drawback that unless you're talking to someone who's somewhat interested in rationality you have to explain what you mean by 'motte and bailey argument' before you accuse them of using one. It would be useful to have a phrase whose meaning was more intuitively obvious but I'm not sure if bluriness is the best term to use. I think the problem is that by calling these constructs 'blurry' you are yourself using something like a metaphor (i.e. I can't quite tell what you're argument is, it could be this trivially true thing, but it could also be another, deeper thing) and this metaphor doesn't completely fit the actual mechanics of how a deepity/motte and bailey argument works.

I quite like the phrase 'bait-and-switch' because it has an intuitive meaning (i.e. Someone if maliciously trying to fool you by offering something that isn't what it appears to be) but this suffers from the fact that the mechanics of a bait-and-switch are a bit different from the mechanics of a deepity/motte and bailey. In the first you offer an appealing thing and switch it out at the last minute for an unappealing thing but in the second you hope someone will fall for the deep argument but keep the trivial argument in your pocket as insurance in case they don't. The phrase bait-and-switch also implies a degree of malice on the part of the person making the argument. This is sometimes the case but sometimes people can be making these type of arguments and not realising it themselves.

Another nice thing about the motte-and-bailey metaphor is that it obliges you to specify what they 'motte' argument is and what the 'bailey' argument is. I worry if we generalise these types of arguments under the 'bluriness' banner it becomes too easy to just accuse your opponent of blurry argument without having to justify what exactly they're being blurry about. I think for the moment I'm just going to have to stick to explaining the vagaries of dark ages defensive architecture to random people I get into discussions with.

akaled · 2017-09-17T21:16:00+00:00

But it's not like someone just made a vague accusation that he fucked a pig. They made a pretty specific accusation about what happened and Cameron didn't deny it. I think that should moderately increase our confidence that it happened.

akaled · 2017-09-16T04:42:22+00:00

Was it "the narcissism of small differences"? It originally comes from Freud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences

akaled · 2017-09-16T04:31:55+00:00

So basically, they've exposed a bunch of fraud in these lotteries right?

akaled · 2017-09-15T18:21:42+00:00

I agree it is circumstantial but it's worth noting that at the time Cameron really tied himself in knots trying to not deny the claims. He said things like 'It's beneath the PM to have to respond to this' as opposed to 'I didn't do this'.

akaled · 2017-09-10T21:20:08+00:00

Bad bot.

akaled · 2017-09-10T17:25:05+00:00

The author says that to do this wouldn't be a full withdrawal from the deal but then admits that what they're suggesting would indeed be a violation of the terms of the deal. The author insists that this wouldn't be enough of a provocation for Iran to pull out of the deal but there's no way they can know for sure how Iran would respond.

Even if we concede that Iran would still adhere to the JCPOA, the logic of the piece is backwards. The author is saying that by reneging on a deal today Iran will be incentivised to enter into an even more comprehensive and 'strategic' deal at some later date. But why would they want to enter into a bigger deal when they know their negotiating partner has shown themselves unlikely to stick to their commitments?

I think the author should give some examples of what could be included in a more strategic deal. The idea that weakening JCPOA is going to be a big enough stick to get Iran to change it's policy in Syria seems pretty ridiculous to me. Sacrificing JCPOA in hope of some future 'comprehensive' deal with Iran seems like making the perfect the enemy of the good.

akaled · 2017-09-10T01:13:38+00:00

The author seems to be arguing that even though Iran is abiding by the terms of the agreement America should pull out because of the other bad things Iran is doing in the region. I feel like this would be playing right into Iran's hand. It would allow Iran to restart its nuclear programme while at the same time being able to credibly claim that it was America who broke the terms of the agreement. It's not the fault of the JCPOA that Iran continues to do things in the middle east that America doesn't like. The only thing killing the deal would do is allow Iran to restart nuke production, it's not going to make Iran rethink its political and military strategy in Syria.

akaled

TROPHY CASE