Huh? Gun dealers lining their pockets?

Where do you get that from?

There is such a demand they took phones off the hook. I see it as, people arming themselves while they still can...

Surprising commentary from Sam Harris
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... of-the-gun
Informative and controversial - he is a gun nut.

Objectivity Harry Binswanger article on Forbes.com


http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswa ... is-amoral/

" Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished."

Robert Tulip wrote:Surprising commentary from Sam Harris
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... of-the-gun
Informative and controversial - he is a gun nut.

Well, I wouldn't say 'gun nut,' would you, really? At least in the American context, he isn't.

DWill wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:Surprising commentary from Sam Harris
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... of-the-gun
Informative and controversial - he is a gun nut.

Well, I wouldn't say 'gun nut,' would you, really? At least in the American context, he isn't.

If anything the Sam Harris piece is one of the more reasonable discussions of the gun issue that I've seen.

Why is Sam Harris a "gun nut"?

I read it.
I am totally in his camp regarding this issue.
As Geo said, his stance is reasonable, well thought out, and he presents the data to back it up.

Great piece.

Of the 4 horsemen, he's the brightest, in my opinion.

Sam Harris is definitely a bright guy.

I'm adding a quick comment here without clicking the links presented so please forgive me if I'm not directly addressing the topic of this thread. But in my opinion we need some serious gun legislation with regards to the type of weapons used in most of the mass murder sprees of recent years. We're seeing sick people using assault weapons that fire 100+ rounds per minute to do their evil deeds.

The founders of our country didn't know about assault rifles. We used muskets back then that could fire one round every minute or so. Attack a group of people with a musket and you kill one person and then you die next. But today it doesn't take a professional soldier to massacre a room full of people. All you need is an assault rifle and a room full of people.

Something needs to change. No citizen should have the legal right to own military grade guns and ammo.

You're right, no one needs to own assault rifles; however, Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people without a gun. Until we address the serious deficiencies in our laws regarding mental health, mentally unhinged people will still find ways to kill, many if they want to. It's easier to cry for gun control, because guns are inanimate, but that's not going to fix our problem.

geo wrote:

DWill wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:Surprising commentary from Sam Harris
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... of-the-gun
Informative and controversial - he is a gun nut.

Well, I wouldn't say 'gun nut,' would you, really? At least in the American context, he isn't.

If anything the Sam Harris piece is one of the more reasonable discussions of the gun issue that I've seen.

On the surface of it, this article may present some dialogue that seems reasonable, but underlying its message are disturbing and xenophobic ideas about the conduct of human society.

"A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene."

There is some truth in this, but let's take it to the next level, one that would be more to the liking of the NRA. Aggressive men want to rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen others. Knowing that guns are now everywhere, the men in question have a M-14, and a semi-automatic pistol. The man with the M-14 is keeping watch. Which one of the dozen with pistols in their belts is going to pull his (or hers) first? A good person to consult on this would be a poker player. Because they are well versed in reading body language and facial expression, something to be fair we are all usually at least moderately good at, because this is the way humans function, and have for a long period of evoluntionary time. In other words, the first twitch could mean death, and so those present would be as reluctant to draw a gun, as those reluctant to rush a knife welding criminal.

The arguement that guns trump knives only ratchets up the level of violence and fear to the next level. Only those that think Hollywood accurately describes life, or those that, NRA style, think that life is neatly divided between the winning "good guys", and the hapless "bad guys" will really believe that all they need is a gun and a quick right hand.

".. Is gun violence increasing in the United States? No. But it certainly seems to be when one recalls recent atrocities in Newtown and Aurora. In fact, the overall rate of violent crime has fallen by 22 percent in the past decade (and 18 percent in the past five years)."

One sage is famously quoted as saying: Statistics are lies. Damned lies. In this case, Sam plays fast and loose with the facts. Overall, violence is decreasing, not only in the US, but in much of the western world. Sociologists tell us that this is because the average age of the population is increasing, and as crime is massively a business of the young, the stats will show this. But here is the outlier: Gun death in the US is vastly higher than in any comparable society. Compared to the US, gun death much smaller in Canada, small to the point of being negligible in Britain, and virtually a sociological curiousity in Japan. Play it any way you want- this is fact.

"..This was as bad as many mass shootings in the U.S. I am not denying that guns are more efficient for killing people than knives are—but the truth is that knives are often lethal enough. And the only reliable way for one person to stop a man with a knife is to shoot him.."

In addition to the fear of crazed killers breaking into his house, Sam seems to have a particular aversion to knives. Yes, knives can do great damage, including death. But we have a different order of magnitude here. A competent marksman can kill dozens from a range of 50-100 meters with a semi-automatic rifle, easily. To kill with a knife takes not only massive, cultural bond breaking motivation, and a strong stomach, but a damned strong right arm. When life is at stake, adrenalin can pump up even the most modest human form, including smaller men and women. The process is messy, difficult, dangerous, time consuming, and beyond the experience of all but the most depraved in society. By contrast, pulling a trigger is not only something seen in the movies millions of times, done by heroes of the screen, but easy enough for the weakest and least competent. The arguement that guns and knives are on the same level is absurd.

"..Gun-control advocates appear unable to distinguish situations in which a gun in the hands of a good person would be useless (or worse) and those in which it would be likely to save dozens of innocent lives..."

Ah, yes, the NRA style image of the "good person". In fact all persons believe themselves to be "good", even if in some convoluted way. Those with psychosis believe (by definition) to see themselves as right. Some of these, as we have seen, can obtain positions in the miltitary, police, and private security . The 17th century notion that we can separate the "crazy" from the sane, by simply asking questions like, do you know the difference between right and wrong, are interesting from a historical perspective, but have no place in modern psychology.

But perhaps people can be trained to use guns responsibly, at least for, say, security guard functions. OK, how well has this worked, statistically, in other areas? People are taught to drive safely, and yet the toll on the highways has exceeded the deaths in war. We are taught to drink responsibly (and indeed mandated to do so), yet alcoholism is rife in this part of the world, and has done untold damage. Today, communication skills and conflict resolution training are commonplace in various settings. Yet how much miscommunication and conflict do we still have? People will be people, and until nirvana arrives, we can only expect (pragmatically) so much.



But, let's move forward to Sam's implicit suggestion.

We have armed guards in the schools, because they have been targets. Well, movie theatres too. And public buildings in general (the Oklahoma Bomber). And shopping malls, swimming pools, airports, bus stations, public squares, post offices..........heck, the list is getting long. If we consult the military, they will tell us that one "good man" is not enough. What might be marginally effective would be to have dozens, or hundreds at each venue, so that they could cover off complex fields of fire, operate various weapon systems, and work in shifts. So now society starts to look like a deployed infantry unit. Moving in the right direction, are we? Is all this worth it, so that a few Daniel Boone afficionados can keep their guns?

"...Clearly, we need more resources in the areas of childhood and teenage mental health, and we need protocols for parents, teachers, and fellow students to follow when a young man in their midst begins to worry them. In the majority of cases, someone planning a public assassination or a mass murder will communicate his intentions to others in advance of the crime..."

Indeed, more resources would be better. But there is no magic bullet (no pun intended) when it comes to mental health. There are no sure tip-offs, no failsafe methods, no way to assess and diagnose hundreds of millions of individuals. We are all on a continum, and no mental health professional is going to say: here he is! tackle him! And I absolutely challenge the assumption that all offenders are going to communicate their intentions. Psychosis knows no such boundaries.

And we haven't even begun to get into the psychological or sociological implications of living in a society that is armed to the teeth, a gun in every car glove box and shoulder holster. Where death is one insult or mistaken move away. God help you all if that is what it comes to.

DWill wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:Surprising commentary from Sam Harris
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... of-the-gun
Informative and controversial - he is a gun nut.

Well, I wouldn't say 'gun nut,' would you, really? At least in the American context, he isn't.

Okay, exaggerating for effect, to encourage people to read what I think is a well reasoned piece. The bottom line is this argument:

Sam Harris wrote:it may no longer be rational to hope that we can solve the problem of gun violence by restricting access to guns—because guns are everywhere, and the only people who will be deterred by stricter laws are precisely those law-abiding citizens who should be able to possess guns for their own protection and who now constitute one of the primary deterrents to violent crime. This is, of course, a familiar “gun nut” talking point. But that doesn’t make it wrong.

Harris nuances this enough to distance himself from the NRA, but it is a view that many would find hard to understand. He goes on to argue that the incompetence of the US penal system provides further justification for sane people to protect their families with guns. And then,

Sam Harris wrote:in the case of the Aurora shooting, it is not ludicrous to suppose that everyone might have been better off had a well-trained person with a gun been at the scene.

I recall years ago Australia's then foreign minister Gareth Evans asked US Secretary of State James Baker about America's problem with gun nuts, to which Baker looked at him with a steely eye and responded "I am a gun nut".