Guns and Cognitive Dissonance in America

MayCaesar

Being prepared for an emergency does not equate expecting an emergency, or believing that there is a significant probability of emergency. My car has airbags; the probability that they will ever be actually used is minuscule, yet it is better to have them than not to have them.

There is no cognitive dissonance here. People make decisions of this kind all the time in their life. Not all of these decisions are pragmatic, but not being pragmatic does not imply experiencing cognitive dissonance.

JoeKerr

@MayCaesar

OK, so Americans own guns, just in case. Just like airbags, better to have them than not to have them you say.
Regarding guns, that just in case is obviously a very real and fearful just in case if it means you need to have something that is designed to kill. 
For me to have a gun, just in case, would be as pointless as having my home reinforced to withstand a tsunami. You know, just in case. In all my life I have never had a thought about needing a gun. 
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on one of the questions asked, whether or not Europeans are being denied their rights because of gun bans, and if you think it would be a good thing to allow Europe to go the same way as America and gun ownership. 

MayCaesar

@JoeKerr

My response was the the OP's specific argument, which is fallacious. My personal opinion on gun laws is irrelevant here.

"Just in case" does not have to be real or fearful for someone to carry a gun, just like it does not have to be real or fearful for someone to have an airbag. The fact that weapons are designed to kill does not alter the equation in any way.

I also have never thought about needing a gun. Other people do. Some people have emergency supplies in case of a nuclear war. Some people set up traps to deter wolves that come once every 10 years close. Different people have different views on how best to go about their safety.

There are many countries in Europe, in case someone needs a reminder. As there are in America. Countries such as Finland or Switzerland have very liberal gun laws, not much stricter than those found in some of the US states.
Obviously, gun bans deny people their rights, pretty much, by definition. In my view, it is a bad thing to have a ban on any peaceful action. That said, I do not see gun laws as that much of a deal. When comparing two countries and choosing which one to leave in, gun laws will not enter the equation I am trying to solve.

ZeusAres42

Hi @Dee, Firstly, I do believe that for an American to have cognitive dissonance with respect to guns they would at least have to have some part of themselves that knows it's rational not to own a gun at least according to them. And if this makes them uncomfortable then they might rationalize their need to possess guns. It has to be a conflicting belief within themselves; not conflicting beliefs amongst two parties.

Now, the way I see it is that there are many different Americans that strongly believe that they need to have guns and they are sure in themselves that they need them. They are not going to have any doubts at all about them needing them; not by a long shot. That doesn't mean to say they definitely need them but they will definitely believe they will need them without any doubt. And some of them might be justified in this respect while others not so much.

anarchist100

How will people defend themselves without guns?

anarchist100

Gun control totally relies on the idea that the government is more trustworthy than everyone else, this idea is wrong, government is just a group of ordinary people, I don't trust the government to protect me, in fact I'm quite worried what they would do if the people didn't have guns, you can do whatever you want to an unarmed population if you have guns yourself.

In short, I just don't trust the government.

CYDdharta

@Dee

Under Pres. Trump, the violent crime rate in the US had dropped to a level not seen since 1971.  The murder rate had dropped below what it was in 1960, the year the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program was initiated.  It was a peaceful society, in spite of the fact, or more likely because of the fact, that gun laws and restrictions had been loosened over thee past 3 decades.  It turns out criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed.  Things were going quite well, then the malcontents in AntiFA and BLM, Inc. decided they'd had enough of that.  From coast to coast, they started rioting, looting, burning buildings, the homicides soon followed.  Now we're back to the rates we were at in the late 90's.  Then Biden, who never found an anti-gun measure he didn't like, became president.  That pushed people who were on the fence about getting a gun for protection to act.  Anti-gun politicians really are the best gun salesmen.  

How is denying citizens the means to defend themselves, forcing them to become victims of criminals, not  regressive and divisive?

CYDdharta

JoeKerr said:

 
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on one of the questions asked, whether or not Europeans are being denied their rights because of gun bans, and if you think it would be a good thing to allow Europe to go the same way as America and gun ownership. 

I don't know any gun owner who thinks about European gun laws.  We just can't figure out why Europeans care about American gun laws.

Dee

@MayCaesar



Being prepared for an emergency does not equate expecting an emergency, or believing that there is a significant probability of emergency. My car has airbags; the probability that they will ever be actually used is minuscule, yet it is better to have them than not to have them.

There is no cognitive dissonance here. 

There certainly is , you totally ignored what I said and what fellow Americans say as in they cite number one reason for guns is to protect themselves and their families  yet wail when you correctly say “ you need a gun to feel safe?” they then say they do not need a gun to feel safe , this is cognitive dissonance 

You also totally ignored my closing question 

Dee

@ZeusAres42

Hi @Dee, Firstly, I do believe that for an American to have cognitive dissonance with respect to guns they would at least have to have some part of themselves that knows it's rational not to own a gun at least according to them. And if this makes them uncomfortable then they might rationalize their need to possess guns. It has to be a conflicting belief within themselves; not conflicting beliefs amongst two parties. 

Hi Z ,the conflicting belief within themselves is that the majority of Americans cite protection of themselves and their families as number one reason for gun ownership then why asked “  “ you need a gun to feel safe?” they then say they do not need a gun to feel safe ,it’s the same every time this is cognitive dissonance 

 In 2016, Americans were ten times more likely to be killed by guns than people in other developed countries. However, two years later, in 2018, our gun homicide rate is now 25.2 times higher than that of other developed nations. In other words, they live in the most dangerous developed nation for gun deaths.

Now, the way I see it is that there are many different Americans that strongly believe that they need to have guns and they are sure in themselves that they need them. They are not going to have any doubts at all about them needing them; not by a long shot. That doesn't mean to say they definitely need them but they will definitely believe they will need them without any doubt. And some of them might be justified in this respect while others not so much. 

I gave the number one reason Americans cite for owning guns so I’m perfectly justified in my stance, we can always turn an argument around by attempting to say “well many Americans don’t feel that way “ etc , etc which is why I cited the main reason for gun ownership 

Not one person ever attempts to answer my final question in my original post ……

A modern society in my opinion should be progressive and inclusive I think most agree , If as I’m told by Americans that we are being denied freedoms by having gun bans in European societies how would introducing guns for citizens be progressive and inclusive ?

How would it not be regressive and divisive?

Dee

@CYDdharta

Under Pres. Trump, the violent crime rate in the US had dropped to a level not seen since 1971

You never did a fact check buddy why’s that?…….

The same day, Trump tweeted: “This year has seen the lowest crime numbers in our Country’s recorded history.”

We asked the White House press office for support for the claims, but we haven’t received a response.

“It’s simply incorrect to say these are the lowest rates in our recorded history,” said Richard Rosenfeld, professor emeritus at the University of Missouri–St. Louis’ Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, who researches U.S. crime trends.

The most recent FBI statistics on the rate and number of crimes are for 2018. They show that crime has declined since Trump became president, but the statistics aren’t “at a level that they haven’t been at.” And historically, these figures have been generally declining for years.

The FBI statistics show “crime generally has been going down [for] quite some time, and well before Trump took office,” Richard Berk, professor of criminology and statistics at the University of Pennsylvania, told us in an email. “If you believe the national data, there has been a pretty long term decline.”

How is denying citizens the means to defend themselves, forcing them to become victims of criminals, not  regressive and divisive?

Thank you for proving my point as I stated in my opening ….. It’s maybe not remarkable that Americans cite as number one reason for gun ownership as being for personal protection in fairness if one feels unsafe in society then wouldn’t it be “natural “ to tool up?

But of course when one asks “so you feel the need to own a gun for personal protection?” One is then screamed down “ how dare you I feel perfectly safe and I choose to have a gun “ 

CYD needs a gun to feel safe in his own home , neighborhood and country , at least you have the honesty to admit it and I agree if your life and the life of your family is daily under threat I could not deny you as live in the worlds most dangerous nation for gun deaths ….

 In 2016, Americans were ten times more likely to be killed by guns than people in other developed countries. However, two years later, in 2018, our gun homicide rate is now 25.2 times higher than that of other developed nations. In other words, we live in the most dangerous developed nation for gun deaths.

So now you admit you need a gun to feel safe prehaps you can answer ……

A modern society in my opinion should be progressive and inclusive I think most agree , If as I’m told by Americans that we are being denied freedoms by having gun bans in European societies how would introducing guns for citizens be progressive and inclusive ?

How would it not be regressive and divisive?

Dee

@anarchist100

How will people defend themselves without guns?

I’ve managed all my life so far so has most the population where I live , how many times have you used your gun ? How many people have you killed? You’ve used your gun right otherwise how did you defend yourself?

MayCaesar

Dee said:

@MayCaesar



Being prepared for an emergency does not equate expecting an emergency, or believing that there is a significant probability of emergency. My car has airbags; the probability that they will ever be actually used is minuscule, yet it is better to have them than not to have them.

There is no cognitive dissonance here. 

There certainly is , you totally ignored what I said and what fellow Americans say as in they cite number one reason for guns is to protect themselves and their families  yet wail when you correctly say “ you need a gun to feel safe?” they then say they do not need a gun to feel safe , this is cognitive dissonance 

You also totally ignored my closing question 

I explained to you exactly what is wrong with your argument. Simply reiterating the argument does not right that wrong.

For your closing question, I do not care how "divisive" something is, as I see a society as a collection of individuals who, by default, are not united and should not be. As for it being regressive, well... In my view, an essential part of progress is liberalization of the individual, and removing legal restrictions on gun ownership and carriage certainly constitutes such liberalization. It is imposition of such restrictions that is regressive, moving the society towards the past, when kings ruled their slaves and did not allow them any not explicitly sanctioned activities.

Then, again, technically progress can go in different directions. Some see communism as progressive, while I see it as a return back to the Ancient Egyptian times when nobody owned anything and everybody enslaved everyone. Some people might genuinely prefer to live in Ancient Egypt compared to the modern Western world, and from that perspective communism is certainly progressive.

As such, something being progressive does not equate it being good. Nuclear bombings are clearly progressive, but I would rather avoid them if at all possible.

Dee

@MayCaesar

I explained to you exactly what is wrong with your argument. Simply reiterating the argument does not right that wrong.

No you didn’t you engineered a false dichotomy to avoid addressing the cognitive dissonance I mentioned which was ….

Every supporter of guns I have come across has gone the same route when arguing about guns as in “we need them for protection “ / “we live in a very peaceful society” 

Your emergency scenario doesn’t work as Americans see gun violence as a very real threat …..

Pew research Centre 

 Experiences  with guns aren’t always positive: 44% of U.S. adults say they personally know someone who has been shot, either accidentally or intentionally, and about a quarter (23%) say they or someone in their family have been threatened or intimidated by someone using a gun. Half see gun violence as a very big problem in the U.S. today, 


Psychology today 

Again Americans live in a very violent country …. In 2016, Americans were ten times more likely to be killed by guns than people in other developed countries. However, two years later, in 2018, our gun homicide rate is now 25.2 times higher than that of other developed nations. In other words, we live in the most dangerous developed nation for gun deaths.

For your closing question, I do not care how "divisive" something is, as I see a society as a collection of individuals who, by default, are not united and should not be. 

You may see it that way but that’s not how societies work as humans have shared goals which clearly demonstrates that though individuals are strongly united on several goals even though those goals may differ from group to group common ground is looked for and agreed on 

You say you don’t care how divisive some something is but I bet you would if it dramatically knocked you out of your comfortable existence right? 

As for it being regressive, well... In my view, an essential part of progress is liberalization of the individual, and removing legal restrictions on gun ownership and carriage certainly constitutes such liberalization. It is imposition of such restrictions that is regressive, moving the society towards the past, when kings ruled their slaves and did not allow them any not explicitly sanctioned activities.

Right so you would see the introduction/ allowing  of guns in a gun free society as a positive?

Then, again, technically progress can go in different directions. Some see communism as progressive, while I see it as a return back to the Ancient Egyptian times when nobody owned anything and everybody enslaved everyone. Some people might genuinely prefer to live in Ancient Egypt compared to the modern Western world, and from that perspective communism is certainly progressive.

Yes true enough 

As such, something being progressive does not equate it being good. Nuclear bombings are clearly progressive, but I would rather avoid them if at all possible.

Progressive would mean improvement nuclear bombings were not that to me anyway , in what way were they progressive?

What way would guns in a gun free society be progressive apart from allowing people an option they mostly don’t want ?


 

John_C_87

@Dee
I gave the number one reason Americans cite for owning guns so I’m perfectly justified in my stance, we can always turn an argument around by attempting to say “well many Americans don’t feel that way “ etc , etc which is why I cited the main reason for gun ownership 

Why a person may choose to own a gun and why a person constitutional should own a gun are not the same.

John_C_87

Owning a gun as a United States Constitutional right is not the same as claiming a constitutional right to owning a gun as an independent person. 

What way would guns in a gun free society be progressive apart from allowing people an option they mostly don’t want ? A legal united would be maintained between a nation's armed service and its citizens on the use of lethal force. Removing the easiest way to apply lethal force does not mean lethal force is removed, is it fair to say psychologically removing guns only affects the use of human lethal force on a psychological level? 
Is a nation safer or does it simply have just fewer incidents of lethal force by gun?

Sociopathy | Psychology Today
Are you saying people should be sharing the constitutional right to offer otherwise prescribed medications for safety from sociopaths?

MayCaesar

@Dee

I feel 100% safe when driving on public roads, yet I would still rather have an airbag than not have - and the number one reason I would want an airbag (in fact, the only reason) is that it adds to my safety.
The fact that I feel safe is perfectly reconcilable with the fact that I might want to take some additional precautions, just in case.

And those "shared goals", of course, are the exact ones that you define, correct? 
I do not have any shared goals with anyone, as far as I can see. Now, I may have common interests in some people and, as such, partake in mutually beneficial interactions. But my ultimate life goal is my personal happiness, and that is not something that can be shared with anyone, by definition.
I am not blind to reality and have encountered many times conflicts which did not go my way. That does not make "divisiveness" problematic in my eyes. I have long ago accepted the fact that the world is not supposed to hand me everything over on a silver platter, and I am not interested in being nursed and protected from everything by some benevolent masters. In fact, the more division, the better. When there is little division, it is a strong symptom of a totalitarian society where everyone is afraid of deviating from the Dear Leaders' beliefs.

I do not think that lack of gun regulations is a good thing; rather, I think that their presence is a bad thing. Their lack is something that should be the norm and should be taken for granted.

Nuclear bombings are a result of the technological progress, and they are much more efficient military weapons to use in large scale conflicts than anything that has ever been invented in the past. Wars themselves are retrograde, but approach to them is continuously progressive. Now military engineers are even working on deployable robots, and that will lead to even higher military efficiency - with all the obvious downsides coming along.

MichaelElpers

@Dee

I need a fire alarm to feel secure if my house catches on fire.
Yet I'm not afraid everyday that the house may catch on fire.

Same thing.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

I need a fire alarm to feel secure if my house catches on fire.

Yet I'm not afraid everyday that the house may catch on fire.

Same thing.


So why not have a house alarm in your home ? We have them here pretty effective things really 

So it not the same thing at all is it?

John_C_87

@Dee

Top reason for gun ownership in the US 

Personal protection tops the list of reasons why gun owners say they own a firearm. In a Gallup survey conducted in August 2019, gun owners were most likely to cite personal safety or protection as the reason they own a firearm. Roughly six-in-ten (63%) said this in an open-ended question. Considerably smaller shares gave other reasons, including hunting (40%), nonspecific recreation or sport (11%), that their gun was an antique or a family heirloom (6%) or that the gun was related to their line of work (5%).

Another question several on here have refused to answer every time guns come up ….A modern society in my opinion should be progressive and inclusive I think most agree , If as I’m told by Americans that we are being denied freedoms by having gun bans in European societies how would introducing guns for citizens be progressive and inclusive ?How would it not be regressive and divisive?

As a person who has little or no understanding of independent united States held in the principles of the Constitution and the powers of a President of the united states of America as set by its legal precedent. A man acting like all men sharing liberty to be created equal by their creator can act, as a President of the united state of firearm ownership and constitutional right, connecting all men by law, let me first say as the statement of truth a burden of lethal force is shared between men in the armed service and those who are outside the armed service, those in Canada and those in America.

According to statistics, 71% of all Canadians own a firearm to legally hold the use of lethal force with its armed service together as a united state. The complex reasons for using lethal force are many and become much more complicated than the United States Constitutional right to own a firearm. This is by nothing more than the introduction of basic principles. The harm created, the so-called cost in what is to be a claim at free is the added price that is created to the liberty to assume this honor with our armed servicemen and women. Even when acts of Congress and exsecutive office dishonor the armed services legal precedent set between these to legal independent entities in this so sacred duty, we do not abandon them, or honor.

Canada Gun Facts and Stats | TheGunBlog.ca

The constitutional right to own a firearm in Canada can be a united state held by constitutional right if Canadians addressed their own United States constitutional right as dearly as some tread on American Constitutional right.

John_C_87

@Dee
Every supporter of guns I have come across has gone the same route when arguing about guns as in “we need them for protection “ / “we live in a very peaceful society” 
 Correction every supporter of gun rights you chose to understand, or just understand?

CYDdharta

@Dee

That was a hilarious response for a thread you started with a definition of cognitive dissonance.  Since you avoided addressing ANY of the points I made, I feel the need to repeat my original post in the (almost assuredly futile) hope that you make an intelligent and pertinent reply for a change.

Under Pres. Trump, the violent crime rate in the US had dropped to a level not seen since 1971.  The murder rate had dropped below what it was in 1960, the year the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program was initiated.  It was a peaceful society, in spite of the fact, or more likely because of the fact, that gun laws and restrictions had been loosened over thee past 3 decades.  It turns out criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed.  Things were going quite well, then the malcontents in AntiFA and BLM, Inc. decided they'd had enough of that.  From coast to coast, they started rioting, looting, burning buildings, the homicides soon followed.  Now we're back to the rates we were at in the late 90's.  Then Biden, who never found an anti-gun measure he didn't like, became president.  That pushed people who were on the fence about getting a gun for protection to act.  Anti-gun politicians really are the best gun salesmen.  

How is denying citizens the means to defend themselves, forcing them to become victims of criminals, not  regressive and divisive?

Dee

@CYDdharta

That was a hilarious response for a thread I started with a definition of cognitive dissonance.  Since you avoided addressing ANY of the points I made, I feel the need to repeat my original post in the (almost assuredly futile) hope that you make an intelligent and pertinent reply for a change.

Under Pres. Trump, the violent crime rate in the US had dropped to a level not seen since 1971

You never did a fact check buddy why’s that?…….

The same day, Trump tweeted: “This year has seen the lowest crime numbers in our Country’s recorded history.”

We asked the White House press office for support for the claims, but we haven’t received a response.

“It’s simply incorrect to say these are the lowest rates in our recorded history,” said Richard Rosenfeld, professor emeritus at the University of Missouri–St. Louis’ Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, who researches U.S. crime trends.

The most recent FBI statistics on the rate and number of crimes are for 2018. They show that crime has declined since Trump became president, but the statistics aren’t “at a level that they haven’t been at.” And historically, these figures have been generally declining for years.

The FBI statistics show “crime generally has been going down [for] quite some time, and well before Trump took office,” Richard Berk, professor of criminology and statistics at the University of Pennsylvania, told us in an email. “If you believe the national data, there has been a pretty long term decline.”

How is denying citizens the means to defend themselves, forcing them to become victims of criminals, not  regressive and divisive?

Thank you for proving my point as I stated in my opening ….. It’s maybe not remarkable that Americans cite as number one reason for gun ownership as being for personal protection in fairness if one feels unsafe in society then wouldn’t it be “natural “ to tool up?

But of course when one asks “so you feel the need to own a gun for personal protection?” One is then screamed down “ how dare you I feel perfectly safe and I choose to have a gun “ 

CYD needs a gun to feel safe in his own home , neighborhood and country , at least you have the honesty to admit it and I agree if your life and the life of your family is daily under threat I could not deny you as live in the worlds most dangerous nation for gun deaths ….

 In 2016, Americans were ten times more likely to be killed by guns than people in other developed countries. However, two years later, in 2018, our gun homicide rate is now 25.2 times higher than that of other developed nations. In other words, we live in the most dangerous developed nation for gun deaths.

So now you admit you need a gun to feel safe prehaps you can answer ……

A modern society in my opinion should be progressive and inclusive I think most agree , If as I’m told by Americans that we are being denied freedoms by having gun bans in European societies how would introducing guns for citizens be progressive and inclusive ?

How would it not be regressive and divisive?

Dee

@MayCaesar


I feel 100% safe when driving on public roads, yet I would still rather have an airbag than not have - and the number one reason I would want an airbag (in fact, the only reason) is that it adds to my safety.
The fact that I feel safe is perfectly reconcilable with the fact that I might want to take some additional precautions, just in case.

I’ve no doubt you do , Americans are mostly agreed they need a gun to feel safe and having or carrying a gun makes them feel safe as they live in a very violent society , the.problem as I pointed out is this absurd game that’s played where you’re told “ oh it’s a very safe society I don’t really need a gun but I have one” you don’t carry a gun if you feel safe and secure 

And those "shared goals", of course, are the exact ones that you define, correct? 

No they are not, individuals have goals different groups have goals normally to achieve something beneficial for their particular group 

I do not have any shared goals with anyone, as far as I can see.

Really? Your an academic you would not have shared goals with fellow academics regards money for research , fairness in the workplace , wage imbalances etc , etc ?

 Now, I may have common interests in some people and, as such, partake in mutually beneficial interactions.

Why do you not deem them shared goals?

 But my ultimate life goal is my personal happiness, and that is not something that can be shared with anyone, by definition.

I agree 


I am not blind to reality and have encountered many times conflicts which did not go my way. That does not make "divisiveness" problematic in my eyes.

Right but we know divisiveness can be devastating  for societies take climate change is divisiveness over this not problematic? 

 I have long ago accepted the fact that the world is not supposed to hand me everything over on a silver platter, and I am not interested in being nursed and protected from everything by some benevolent masters

Nor am I , I do not have an employer , I pick my own work hours and only work if I want to , my work is also my pleasure and I answer to no one 

I would hate to work for someone or some company or. official entity  as I would be on their clock which to me is hell 

. In fact, the more division, the better. When there is little division, it is a strong symptom of a totalitarian society where everyone is afraid of deviating from the Dear Leaders' beliefs.

Yes division is good to a point but we need to be on the same page for several issues that affect us all globally 

I do not think that lack of gun regulations is a good thing; rather, I think that their presence is a bad thing. 

Yet the US has a gun homicide rate higher than any other country in the world how do you deal with that?

Nuclear bombings are a result of the technological progress, and they are much more efficient military weapons to use in large scale conflicts than anything that has ever been invented in the past.

Yes they are incredibly efficient at wiping out fellow humans 

 Wars themselves are retrograde, but approach to them is continuously progressive.

Progressive slaughter 

 Now military engineers are even working on deployable robots, and that will lead to even higher military efficiency - with all the obvious downsides coming along.

Yes I may not be around but the day is not to far away when AI will decide wars and humans most likely will becomes redundant and eliminated,  AI no doubt could also survive the catostrophic changes to come through climate change 

MichaelElpers

@Dee.

There are many people that have house alarms.
But they're no guarantee to keep a person away especially in areas where police response may take a while .

People are also victimized outside their home.

Do you need a house alarm to feel safe?
If you do does that mean you live in an unsafe society?

Dee

@MichaelElpers


There are many people that have house alarms.
But they're no guarantee to keep a person away especially in areas where police response may take a while .

Ahh got you , a guns is needed  just in case and what do you have just in case the gun doesn’t work?

People are also victimized outside their home.

Yes, you need guns to feel safe in the  US , this is the usual hilarious game Americans play as “I need a gun to feel safe /I don’t  need a gun to feel safe “

Do you need a house alarm to feel safe?

No I don’t , which is why I never had one until my wife asked for one 

If you do does that mean you live in an unsafe society?

Well we don’t have a society that has a 25 per cent higher than anywhere else in the world homocide rate and we don’t need a gun to walk the streets , this is the part where you say something truly American like “hey a gun is just a tool” 

MichaelElpers

@Dee

If the gun doesn't work obviously you lose.  Same as if an alarm doesn't work.

OK so your wife disagrees with you.  That means according to you she feels unsafe in her own home.

Bastiat

@Dee Love it when people cite homicide rates in gun control discussions without providing any evidence that the homicide rate is tied to gun ownership.

Also surely you don't think "well what if doesn't work" is a convincing argument? I wear a seat-belt in case of a crash, because in the event of a crash, it is likely to improve the chance that I walk away from that crash. saying "well what if the seat-belt doesn't work" is not a convincing argument for not wearing it.

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers
All I know is Alarms don't keep guns safe...
Alarms, dye packs, and safes don't keep money safe...and the word safe is used in the list of basic principles. 

CYDdharta

@Dee

You should hide those bales of straw that you're unsuccessfully trying to fashion into an argument before our self-appointed fallacy meter-maid happens upon this thread.  Try responding to what I posted instead of the strawmen you've been building.

Under Pres. Trump, the violent crime rate in the US had dropped to a level not seen since 1971.  The murder rate had dropped below what it was in 1960, the year the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program was initiated.  

This is a fact.  Stop posting irrelevant quotes from Pres. Trump and address this fact.

It was a peaceful society, in spite of the fact, or more likely because of the fact, that gun laws and restrictions had been loosened over thee past 3 decades.  It turns out criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed.  How about addressing the fact that the murder rate went down as gun laws were reduced?

From 1991 on, murders either dropped or rose no more than .1/100,000 except 2015-2016 (Ferguson) and 2019-present.  Things were going quite well, then the malcontents in AntiFA and BLM, Inc. decided they'd had enough of that.  From coast to coast, they started rioting, looting, burning buildings, the homicides soon followed.  Now we're back to the rates we were between 1997 and 1998.   As long as AntiFA and BLM, Inc. agitators are allowed to start riots at will, until AntiFA and BLM, Inc. are treated like the criminal enterprises they are, You can hardly blame people for seeking a means to defend themselves from the terrorists.

Dee

@CYDdharta

You should hide those bales of straw that you're unsuccessfully trying to fashion into an argument before our self-appointed fallacy meter-maid happens upon this thread.  Try responding to what I posted instead of the strawmen you've been building.

Translation from CYD to English …..Damn he got me again I didn’t think he would go to fact check to prove I’m b-ullshitting again 

Under Pres. Trump, the violent crime rate in the US had dropped to a level not seen since 1971.  The murder rate had dropped below what it was in 1960, the year the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program was initiated.  

This is a fact.  Stop posting irrelevant quotes from Pres. Trump and address this fact.

It was a peaceful society, in spite of the fact, or more likely because of the fact, that gun laws and restrictions had been loosened over thee past 3 decades.  It turns out criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed.  How about addressing the fact that the murder rate went down as gun laws were reduced?

From 1991 on, murders either dropped or rose no more than .1/100,000 except 2015-2016 (Ferguson) and 2019-present.  Things were going quite well, then the malcontents in AntiFA and BLM, Inc. decided they'd had enough of that.  From coast to coast, they started rioting, looting, burning buildings, the homicides soon followed.  Now we're back to the rates we were between 1997 and 1998.   As long as AntiFA and BLM, Inc. agitators are allowed to start riots at will, until AntiFA and BLM, Inc. are treated like the criminal enterprises they are, You can hardly blame people for seeking a means to defend themselves from the terrorists.


I don’t read party political speeches for Trump, either way you totally missed the point you Americans need guns to feel safe your gun homocide  relate is 25 per cent higher than anywhere else in the world , you keep admitting you need a gun to feel safe ….

, You can hardly blame people for seeking a means to defend themselves from the terrorists.……so what are you even arguing about I agree Americans need a gun to feel safe ….ZING 

Dee

@MichaelElpers


If the gun doesn't work obviously you lose. 

Right , so you need back up in case your alarm doesn’t work but none if the gun doesn’t work , got ya 

Same as if an alarm doesn't work.

Yes the diffference is in the US you need a gun because others bent on harming you carry guns also


OK so your wife disagrees with you.  That means according to you she feels unsafe in her own home.

Again incorrect she wanted the alarm to save on home insurance costs they go up without an alarm 


You also stated ….. People are also victimized outside their home.

So again you admit you need a gun outside the home so what you’re arguing about is beyond me , as I said time and time again every American tells you they need a gun for protection but them spend countless hours telling you why they don’t need a gun for protection the hilarious thing is they think this makes sense 

Dee

@Bastiat


Love it when people cite homicide rates in gun control discussions without providing any evidence that the homicide rate is tied to gun ownership.

Love it when a gun nut jumps in to defend a fellow gun nut and doesn’t even read links supplied as it’s all about ignoring facts and more about the mob screaming down the truth

I suggest you read the link again where its mentioned ……”gun homocide rate” ……would you like it in bold and an arrow pointing to it ?

 our gun homicide rate is now 25.2 times higher than that of other developed nations. I

Also surely you don't think "well what if doesn't work" is a convincing argument? I wear a seat-belt in case of a crash, because in the event of a crash, it is likely to improve the chance that I walk away from that crash. saying "well what if the seat-belt doesn't work" is not a convincing argument for not wearing it.

I don’t think it’s convincing either which is why I didn’t make that argument , that’s your new best buddy and fellow gun nut @michaelElpers who needs a gun in case his house alarm doesn’t work , here you go in his own words …. There are many people that have house alarms.
But they're no guarantee to keep a person away especially in areas where police response may take a while .

That’s one thing I admire about you it’s the fact you beat your own arguments using your own words and now you agree your buddys argument is rubbish I agree …..I look forward to the next part where you concoct a new yarn to try and get you out of the latest hole you dug for yourself but I bet you keep digging as usual 

You guys should use message to get your stories straight although I don’t think you and M are going to be best buddies any more seeing as you find his arguments as you say in your own words “ unconvincing “ 

Now you have my permission to go as you’re probably late for the latest NRA meet up 

                                                                         ZING 

CYDdharta

Dee said:

@CYDdharta

You should hide those bales of straw that you're unsuccessfully trying to fashion into an argument before our self-appointed fallacy meter-maid happens upon this thread.  Try responding to what I posted instead of the strawmen you've been building.

Translation from CYD to English …..Damn he got me again I didn’t think he would go to fact check to prove I’m b-ullshitting again 

Under Pres. Trump, the violent crime rate in the US had dropped to a level not seen since 1971.  The murder rate had dropped below what it was in 1960, the year the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program was initiated.  

This is a fact.  Stop posting irrelevant quotes from Pres. Trump and address this fact.

It was a peaceful society, in spite of the fact, or more likely because of the fact, that gun laws and restrictions had been loosened over thee past 3 decades.  It turns out criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed.  How about addressing the fact that the murder rate went down as gun laws were reduced?

From 1991 on, murders either dropped or rose no more than .1/100,000 except 2015-2016 (Ferguson) and 2019-present.  Things were going quite well, then the malcontents in AntiFA and BLM, Inc. decided they'd had enough of that.  From coast to coast, they started rioting, looting, burning buildings, the homicides soon followed.  Now we're back to the rates we were between 1997 and 1998.   As long as AntiFA and BLM, Inc. agitators are allowed to start riots at will, until AntiFA and BLM, Inc. are treated like the criminal enterprises they are, You can hardly blame people for seeking a means to defend themselves from the terrorists.


I don’t read party political speeches for Trump, either way you totally missed the point you Americans need guns to feel safe your gun homocide  relate is 25 per cent higher than anywhere else in the world , you keep admitting you need a gun to feel safe ….

, You can hardly blame people for seeking a means to defend themselves from the terrorists.……so what are you even arguing about I agree Americans need a gun to feel safe ….ZING 

Ah, so what you're saying is that there is no limit to the amount of evidence you'll ignore to hold on to your failed position.  Some things never change.

Dee

@CYDdharta

Ah, so what you're saying is that there is no limit to the amount of evidence you'll ignore to hold on to your failed position.  Some things never change.

My position was and is Americans say they need guns to feel safe then like you argue they don’t need guns to feel safe , you’re doing it yet again ….I know you need guns to feel safe you agree remember?

Lets remind you that you admitted in your own words your need for guns to feel safe  …… , You can hardly blame people for seeking a means to defend themselves from the terrorists

                                                                         OUCH !

MayCaesar

@Dee

I am not sure how you keep missing the point that one can feel perfectly safe, and still not hesitate to take additional precautions. Everyone does that to some extent in their lives, does not matter if with relation to guns, airbags, bear sprays or something else.
Bear sprays are especially interesting. Statistically, if I remember correctly, 0.4 people per year in the US die to a bear attack - yet bear sprays always sell out fast. It is not like all the hikers, hunters and the like go into the forest fearing bears; most never run into bears in their lives. Yet, again, the "just in case" thinking prevails.
And if you ask a bear spray owner what they need the bear spray for, their reasoning will be exactly the same as the reasoning of the gun owners you cite.

No, I have no shared goals with other academics. We collaborate on certain things to mutual benefit, but, at the end of the day, I care about my own skin and do my work because it pleases me. I love science, and the fact that other people around me also love science is inconsequential to that.
Nor do I care about "fairness" which is a fuzzy concept to begin with. I feel that it is fair when I get paid as my contract states. That is it.

Irrationality can be devastating. Divisiveness in itself cannot. People can have very different ideas on something and fight over it constantly, but as long as everyone is being rational, I do not see a problem.
Unity - now that is a scary thing indeed.

I do not know who "we" is. There are no "global goals", as far as I am concerned. As long as other people do not infringe on my and others' rights, I do not much care what they do on the global scale.

The US has homicide rates across the board higher than many other countries in the world. The problem, apparently, is not the guns. There is also no statistically significant positive correlation between the laxness of gun laws and homicide rates across the US states.
"You have lax gun regulations and high homicide rates... Clearly the guns are causing this!" - is a very primitive reasoning that falls apart upon the slightest logical scrutiny.

MichaelElpers

@Dee

I don't believe anyone ever claimed a gun has a 100% chance of success. No prevention mechanism does.

Your insurance goes up more than the alarm payment is? The fact that insurance goes up is almost even worse because now it's not anecdotal to your wife.  Insurance has ran the numbers and declared a significant that something happening to your home is enough risk that you need an alarm.

You're hopeless.  How many people need to tell you there is a difference between wanting a preventative measure in case of emergency and being constantly paranoid about it.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

I don't believe anyone ever claimed a gun has a 100% chance of success. No prevention mechanism does.

Thanks for that nugget of information captain obvious so we have established you need an alarm in case of a break in and a gun in case the alarm fails as you admit it happens and nothing in case the gun fails ? Do you see how nutty your argument is ?

Your insurance goes up more than the alarm payment is?

Yes , why do find that strange?

 The fact that insurance goes up is almost even worse because now it's not anecdotal to your wife.  Insurance has ran the numbers and declared a significant that something happening to your home is enough risk that you need an alarm.

Isn’t that a shocker insurance companies have collectively found a way to get more money out of customers , your wide eyed innocence is the same type one would see in an episode of the Waltons 

You're hopeless.  How many people need to tell you there is a difference between wanting a preventative measure in case of emergency and being constantly paranoid about it.

But you’re the one who claims they need a gun outside the house also.Americans own half the guns in the world and have the highest gun homocide rate 25 per cent higher than anywhere else in the world no one comes even close 

Maybe you can find something on your “Global research “ site that claims the opposite …….You’re a hopeless gun nut 

MichaelElpers

@Dee

No I don't see how nutty the argument is because the line would be endless. I want a fire alarm to alert me for fires and a fire extinguisher to put out the fire, the fire extinguisher is no guarantee but I still want one.

Well if your insurance had any competition it wouldn't increase your price much.  Certainly not more than the alarm system itself. 

Dee

@MichaelElpers ;


No I don't see how nutty the argument is because the line would be endless. I want a fire alarm to alert me for fires and a fire extinguisher to put out the fire, the fire extinguisher is no guarantee but I still want one.

Right but we are agreed you need a gun to feel safe inside and outside also so what are you even arguing about most Americans agree 

Well if your insurance had any competition it wouldn't increase your price much.  Certainly not more than the alarm system itself. 

It has plenty of competition but the price differences between companies is not worth switching for I bet it’s no different where you are 

John_C_87

@Dee

Well we don’t have a society that has a 25 per cent higher than anywhere else in the world homocide rate and we don’t need a gun to walk the streets , this is the part where you say something truly American like “hey a gun is just a tool” 
Isn't this in basic principle simply claiming Canada may have the smartest criminals in the world?

John_C_87

Well we don’t have a society that has a 25 per cent higher than anywhere else in the world homocide rate and we don’t need a gun to walk the streets , this is the part where you say something truly American like “hey a gun is just a tool” 

The missing person rate is kind of high, not having any reported murders and not solving reported murders, and finding out a murder has happened is statistically not the same thing, I mean I get it though killers may not speak the kind of English grammar you understand. I guess America can save money by multi-tasking prisons with zoos just sounds kind of harsh when it doesn't occur naturally.

23 Animals You Will Find in Canada | Cansumer

Bastiat

@Dee our gun homicide rate? So? I would have expected you to to avoid such low hanging fruit but I suppose those expectations were quite silly. To quote gun homicides as a useful statistic is to say the issue is with homicides committed with guns, and not simply homicides. Implicit within the argument, is the premise that if those guns were not there, then the homicide would not have happened. So yes, essentially you are claiming that guns do have a causal effect on violent crime.If you weren't, then citing firearm homicide statistics would be worthless.

Maybe work through your underlying premises a bit more before you continue to embarrass yourself?

Dee

@Bastiat

 our gun homicide rate? So? 

Yes your gun homicide  rate 25 per cent higher than any other country in the world , remember now?

I would have expected you to to avoid such low hanging fruit but I suppose those expectations were quite silly.

No what you expected was I wouldn’t correct your st-upidity but I couldn’t resist , you clearly stated ….

Love it when people cite homicide rates in gun control discussions without providing any evidence that the homicide rate is tied to gun ownership.

I provided the evidence and you’re sulking ….ahhhh


 To quote gun homicides as a useful statistic is to say the issue is with homicides committed with guns, and not simply homicides. 

Ha , Ha yes I think we all know what “gun homicides “ means 

Implicit within the argument, is the premise that if those guns were not there, then the homicide would not have happened. 

If there were no guns there would be no gun homicides you nut 

So yes, essentially you are claiming that guns do have a causal effect on violent crime.If you weren't, then citing firearm homicide statistics would be worthless. 

I’m sorry you don’t understand that guns are used to carry out violent crime , homocide stats demonstrate clearly the damage they do 

Maybe work through your underlying premises a bit more before you continue to embarrass yourself?

The only person who has embarrassed himself is you as you tried to lick another gun nuts a-ss and failed and you’re that st-upid
you cited two arguments I didn’t make , heres the second one you made  bet your face is bright red, I know if I made them I’d feel the same way ……


Also surely you don't think "well what if doesn't work" is a convincing argument?


You attacked an argument I didn’t make that’s still your buddys statement not mine 

Dee

@MayCaesar

I am not sure how you keep missing the point that one can feel perfectly safe, and still not hesitate to take additional precautions. 

I’ve heard your point and others but no one is listening , I have stated from the off a sizable amount of Americans fear gun violence personal safety and protection are the reason 60 per cent of Americans own gun , 50 per cent of Americans also say gun violence is a huge problem

People carry guns to feel safe, Americans attempt to normalise this and when confronted with the stars which they admit to ( mostly) then spiral into this ridiculous dance of denial 

It’s bizzare the biggest cause for concern in the US is afforadable healthcare by a stretch Americans mostly admit that but like guns strangely deny it’s a problem when questioned by non Americans on the matter , bizzare behaviour to say the least 

Everyone does that to some extent in their lives, does not matter if with relation to guns, airbags, bear sprays or something else.
Bear sprays are especially interesting. Statistically, if I remember correctly, 0.4 people per year in the US die to a bear attack - yet bear sprays always sell out fast. It is not like all the hikers, hunters and the like go into the forest fearing bears; most never run into bears in their lives. Yet, again, the "just in case" thinking prevails.
And if you ask a bear spray owner what they need the bear spray for, their reasoning will be exactly the same as the reasoning of the gun owners you cite.

Thats yet another false dichotomy do people carry bear sprays in streets just in case?

No, I have no shared goals with other academics. We collaborate on certain things to mutual benefit, but, at the end of the day, I care about my own skin and do my work because it pleases me. I love science, and the fact that other people around me also love science is inconsequential to that.
Nor do I care about "fairness" which is a fuzzy concept to begin with. I feel that it is fair when I get paid as my contract states. That is it.

Well that’s fair enough, your life to live as you see fit 

Irrationality can be devastating. Divisiveness in itself cannot. 

Well I’m afraid it can the global climate crisis is proof of this ,political divisiveness can be devastating in the extreme 

People can have very different ideas on something and fight over it constantly, but as long as everyone is being rational, I do not see a problem.

Who judges what is rational? We cannot even come to common ground on guns or healthcare and I’m sure you see your position as totally rational as do I mine.

No doubt you think me totally irrational and wrong in my views on such isn’t that always the way?


Unity - now that is a scary thing indeed.

For me on certain global issues no , the Covid crisis over here relied on a certain amount of unity likewise global warming as collectively we as a nation are agreed it’s a very real threat and steps have to be taken , we are following what the best scientists in the field say is best practice 

I have zero time for conspiracy theorists who mock reputable  scientists working in any fields as it’s extermely damaging , Covid nuts over here wreaked havoc by spreading misinformation from psuedoscientific sources and religious sources 


 I do not know who "we" is. There are no "global goals", as far as I am concerned.

”We” is the population of the world the global goal is addressing global warming which most of the world has pledged to take steps towards addressing 

 As long as other people do not infringe on my and others' rights, I do not much care what they do on the global scale.

Yes I get that , you do not care about global warming or the issues involved in it ?

The US has homicide rates across the board higher than many other countries in the world. The problem, apparently, is not the guns. There is also no statistically significant positive correlation between the laxness of gun laws and homicide rates across the US states.

it’s never the guns is it?  Gun homicide rates are 25 per cent higher than anywhere else in the world the problem with gun homicide  rates is the gun , take the gun out you haven’t got gun homocides



"You have lax gun regulations and high homicide rates... Clearly the guns are causing this!" - is a very primitive reasoning that falls apart upon the slightest logical scrutiny.

No , your rewording of what I said is disingenuous and you  know it  , I cited gun homicide rates 

MayCaesar

@Dee

It seems to me that you are confusing wanting to feel safe with wanting to be safer. The fact that someone takes additional safety precautions does not imply that they do not feel safe otherwise.
I feel just as safe inside my car without a seat belt on as I am with it on, as I am very confident in my driving ability; I still put the belt on every time I drive, as the amount of effort it takes is too negligible compared even to the miniscule increase in safety.
Of course the primary reason people own/carry guns is safety. What else could it be? Wanting to look like a cowboy? I acknowledge this fact; the fact is not wrong. Your conclusion simply does not follow from it.

Funny that you keep mentioning the "climate crisis". We were just talking about it with friends during hiking a couple of days ago, and we compared the hysteria around the climate with the way people carry guns around for safety. I personally worry much less about the state of the climate than I could ever worry about my safety here in the US - and I absolutely do not worry about the latter, so...

No, I do not think that my position is "totally rational"; few positions are. My position, however, does not contradict evidence explicitly, while yours does. There has never been statistically significant positive correlation found between the strictness of gun laws and the levels of either violence in general, or gun violence specifically, in the US. This is at odds with what one would expect if your claims about guns affecting crime rates negatively were true. Standard hypothesis testing: your hypothesis predicts certain outcomes that are not observed - hence you are supposed to reject it in favor of the null hypothesis, which is the one I am suggesting.
Nature is the only arbiter of truth. You can believe whatever you want about your rationality; the encounter with the laws of nature will punish you for every bit of irrationality, and doubly so for those that you refuse to acknowledge. And the nature does not care what you think should be true about the consequences of various gun laws; the consequences are what they are.

I do not share in your stated goal of the population of the world with respect to climate; I could not care less about the increase in global temperatures by a couple of degrees. It is a fallacious presumption that certain things that you see as universally desirable are actually desired by every individual. Some people may actually want the world to burn, for example. There is no "global population" that wants something; there are billions of sentient creatures, each with their own goals and interests.

Indeed, without guns, there would be no gun homicides; not a very untrivial conclusion. But you were not comparing a society with no guns with a society with guns; you were comparing a society with strict gun laws with a society with liberal gun laws. These are different comparisons.

Dee

It seems to me that you are confusing wanting to feel safe with wanting to be safer. The fact that someone takes additional safety precautions does not imply that they do not feel safe otherwise.


You are using language yet again disingenuously their is no confusion on my party Americans mostly carry guns to feel safe they feel unsafe without them and that’s in their own words 

I do not carry a gun or a knife (they are also ) banned and I wouldn’t if allowed as I don’t feel unsafe 

I feel just as safe inside my car without a seat belt on as I am with it on, as I am very confident in my driving ability; I still put the belt on every time I drive, as the amount of effort it takes is too negligible compared even to the miniscule increase in safety.

Yes and a gun is carried outside to feel safe 

Of course the primary reason people own/carry guns is safety. What else could it be?

As I stated from the off 

 Wanting to look like a cowboy?  I acknowledge this fact; the fact is not wrong. Your conclusion simply does not follow from it.

My conclusion is Americans mostly carry guns to feel safe they admit this one of their biggest fears is gun violence they also admit this 

Funny that you keep mentioning the "climate crisis". We were just talking about it with friends during hiking a couple of days ago, and we compared the hysteria around the climate with the way people carry guns around for safety. I personally worry much less about the state of the climate than I could ever worry about my safety here in the US - and I absolutely do not worry about the latter, so...

I get it you don’t worry about carrying guns for safety but most fellow Americans do. I never had you down as a science denier who would call the climate crisis “ hysteria” dear oh dear , it’s seems you do not have much respect for your fellow scientists evaluations on the crisis , why’s that ?

No, I do not think that my position is "totally rational"; few positions are. My position, however, does not contradict evidence explicitly, while yours does. 

Mine does not despite your denial of such my original statement and argument rests on 1 statement……

It’s maybe not remarkable that Americans cite as number one reason for gun ownership as being for personal protection in fairness if one feels unsafe in society then wouldn’t it be “natural “ to tool up?

But of course when one asks “so you feel the need to own a gun for personal protection?” One is then screamed down “ how dare you I feel perfectly safe and I choose to have a gun “ 

You agree with my assessment ( based on data)  your words …..

Of course the primary reason people own/carry guns is safety. What else could it be?

Yet you are doing the same dance the others do as in agreeing but disagreeing at the same time 

There has never been statistically significant positive correlation found between the strictness of gun laws and the levels of either violence in general, or gun violence specifically, in the US

I haven’t once mentioned gun laws , that’s another strawman 

. This is at odds with what one would expect if your claims about guns affecting crime rates negatively were true. Standard hypothesis testing: your hypothesis predicts certain outcomes that are not observed - hence you are supposed to reject it in favor of the null hypothesis, which is the one I am suggesting.

You’re arguing against arguments I’m not making 


Nature is the only arbiter of truth. You can believe whatever you want about your rationality; the encounter with the laws of nature will punish you for every bit of irrationality, and doubly so for those that you refuse to acknowledge. 

Truth is that which is accordance with fact or reality , what I stated is thus and also backed by significant data , now the normal ruse here is to discredit the source or cite contradictory “evidence . Intellect is the actual arbitrator of truth if such a thing can be said 

And the nature does not care what you think should be true about the consequences of various gun laws; the consequences are what they are.

Yes the consequences can be seen by the hour I’m sorry but that statement you made is like something Deepak Chopra would say and be proud of 

I do not share in your stated goal of the population of the world with respect to climate; I could not care less about the increase in global temperatures by a couple of degrees. 

Yes I know but whether you care or not it’s impact is being felt 

It is a fallacious presumption that certain things that you see as universally desirable are actually desired by every individual. 

That’s another unfair re - wording  of my argument I did not say “every “ individual “ I wish you would stop crediting with things I have not said 

Some people may actually want the world to burn, for example. There is no "global population" that wants something; there are billions of sentient creatures, each with their own goals and interests.

There is a sizable proportion of the worlds population who do care about global warming do you want a list of countries who have signed up to the process? Of course as usual the top 10 are European countries who mostly base their efforts on science and not religion and pseudoscience 

170 countries have national policies on such 

Indeed, without guns, there would be no gun homicides; not a very untrivial conclusion. But you were not comparing a society with no guns with a society with guns; you were comparing a society with strict gun laws with a society with liberal gun laws. These are different comparisons.

I still haven’t mentioned gun laws 

MayCaesar

@Dee

In none of the statistics you mentioned was "Americans feel unsafe without guns" demonstrated.

First, Americans are not any more my fellows than any other arbitrary group of people.
Second, less than half American adults own guns, so you are wrong in your "most fellow Americans..." claim.
Third, Americans carrying guns for safety does not imply any worry about anything.

My "fellow" scientist evaluations do not give me any cause for worrying, let alone being hysterical, about the future.

The majority of the global population is not the same as the global population. If everyone but one person wants something, then it is factually incorrect to say that the global population wants something. And even if absolutely everyone wanted something, it still would not imply that all of them are willing to work together towards it. Sentient beings are individuals and do not have a hive mind that "wants" something, and anyone can change their mind at any moment.
I could not care less about what everyone else wants; I know what I want, and it has little in common with the utopian future government panelists envision.

Dee

@MayCaesar

In none of the statistics you mentioned was "Americans feel unsafe without guns" demonstrated.

Really? Iet’s  try again ………

Personal protection tops the list of reasons why gun owners say they own a firearm. In a Gallup survey conducted in August 2019, gun owners were most likely to cite personal safety or protection as the reason they own a firearm. 

You agreed …. Of course the primary reason people own/carry guns is safety. What else could it be?


First, Americans are not any more my fellows than any other arbitrary group of people.

Ok you’re  not American , fine ….You do know what “fellow American “ means right?  You’re  resorting to pedantry 


Second, less than half American adults own guns, so you are wrong in your "most fellow Americans..." claim.

Pedantry 


Third, Americans carrying guns for safety does not imply any worry about anything.

It does, as you clearly stated …. . Of course the primary reason people own/carry guns is safety. What else could it be?

They  carry them to feel safe ……you’re still saying they need then to feel safe /don’t need them to feel safe as I predicted from the off 


My "fellow" scientist evaluations do not give me any cause for worrying, let alone being hysterical, about the future.

Well who’s being hysterical ? Concerned is the word 171 countries are concerned …..not everyone is Greta Thunberg 

The majority of the global population is not the same as the global population. 

Yes 

If everyone but one person wants something, then it is factually incorrect to say that the global population wants something. 

Why who said that? What do you call 171 countries? 

And even if absolutely everyone wanted something, it still would not imply that all of them are willing to work together towards it. Sentient beings are individuals and do not have a hive mind that "wants" something, and anyone can change their mind at any moment.

Yes , but we are talking about collective goals globally something you denied right ? 

I could not care less about what everyone else wants; I know what I want, and it has little in common with the utopian future government panelists envision.

Well you do actually you impart knowledge for a living and you care about doing it to the best of your ability so you do care that your students want this and you do care about doing your best to supply it or would you deny this?

Yes I know and you’re entitled to your f-uck everyone else attitude regards everything , I’m pretty much on the same page but there are things like covid vaccination that require cooperation global warming being another we live in a world where we have to suffer the effects of science denialism , that’s life 

JoeKerr

Argument Topic: Americans and guns

Here is a link to an article by the Pew Research Center about Americans and guns.
Well worth a read.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/