The Test

[ashurbanipal]

I don't think that train ever left the station.

As I said in the OP, I know such a test cannot exist. Again, you're simply missing the point.

 

[blaxshep]

As I said in the OP, I know such a test cannot exist. Again, you're simply missing the point.

Ok the point is what, if we could? Yep ok I agree then.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Ok the point is what, if we could? Yep ok I agree then.

Well, there are multiple points--probably an incalculable number of points that could be gleaned from this kind of discussion, though the ultimate end of all of them would be to inform our practical decisions. Here's one example of a point that I could see developing out of this thought experiment:

Some theorists believe that there are different tiers or categories of rights. The right to life is among the most basic of rights, while rights like freedom of press are second tier rights. If we are in a situation where we must give up one or the other, it's usually preferable to give up the right to freedom of press rather than the right to life.

Proponents of gun control point to this conflict. The right to own a gun is probably a second tier right. For them, gun ownership is in direct conflict with the right to life: gun ownership means that people will lose their lives unnecessarily, and so the right to gun ownership should be given up. Let's call this the "conflict argument." But opponents of the conflict argument say (correctly, in my view) that in fact no such direct conflict exists. The test asks us to consider a situation under which the two rights actually would (if it did exist) come into direct conflict.

Now, I have no idea how a full discussion of the matter would shake out. But I think opponents of gun control who would accept the test come out on top, here. They can acknowledge the tier of rights and take the practically warranted action. But then, the argument would be that only a few people would be deprived of their rights, but the conflict would be resolved without any need to resort to general control of guns. Ergo, gun control is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to preserve the right to life. Or, to be a little more perspicuous: the thought experiment provides a way to argue against gun control advocates who advance the conflict argument.

That's just one possible set of points to discuss...

 

[Crimefree]

Well, there are multiple points--probably an incalculable number of points that could be gleaned from this kind of discussion, though the ultimate end of all of them would be to inform our practical decisions. Here's one example of a point that I could see developing out of this thought experiment:

Some theorists believe that there are different tiers or categories of rights. The right to life is among the most basic of rights, while rights like freedom of press are second tier rights. If we are in a situation where we must give up one or the other, it's usually preferable to give up the right to freedom of press rather than the right to life.

Proponents of gun control point to this conflict. The right to own a gun is probably a second tier right. For them, gun ownership is in direct conflict with the right to life: gun ownership means that people will lose their lives unnecessarily, and so the right to gun ownership should be given up. Let's call this the "conflict argument." But opponents of the conflict argument say (correctly, in my view) that in fact no such direct conflict exists. The test asks us to consider a situation under which the two rights actually would (if it did exist) come into direct conflict.

Now, I have no idea how a full discussion of the matter would shake out. But I think opponents of gun control who would accept the test come out on top, here. They can acknowledge the tier of rights and take the practically warranted action. But then, the argument would be that only a few people would be deprived of their rights, but the conflict would be resolved without any need to resort to general control of guns. Ergo, gun control is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to preserve the right to life. Or, to be a little more perspicuous: the thought experiment provides a way to argue against gun control advocates who advance the conflict argument.

That's just one possible set of points to discuss...

Just one small problem you made an assumption which is incorrect.

1) gun control is not logical. Do you understand what that means?
2) the mandate of gun control is not some social reform
3) gun control will not deprive a few people of their rights, it will deprive EVERYONE of their rights
4) gun control advocates do not advance anything but beliefs and fear driven demands.

The belief gun control advocates are rational would be like claiming the German population of Nazi Germany were rational in hating and fearing Jews.

 

[Crimefree]

As I said in the OP, I know such a test cannot exist. Again, you're simply missing the point.

What can the point possibly be?

Are you also assuming that gun cause something which can be the only logical point of further discussion. I really am trying hard to find what you saw interesting in the discussion other than getting people to discuss gun control.

 

[molten_dragon]

I'm against gun control in almost all its forms. History tells us that people who give up their weapons inevitably regret it, usually while also giving up a great deal of blood, freedom, or both. Of course, there are obvious and reasonable exceptions. People currently incarcerated probably shouldn't be allowed to have guns. A five-year-old child probably shouldn't be able to walk into a store and buy a gun. Common sense.


I want to propose a thought experiment, and I want to hear from opponents of gun control on this idea. Let me preface this by noting that I'm a professional philosopher, and as such, I love to dream up scenarios that couldn't ever actually happen, with the idea that those scenarios can nevertheless hold some valuable lessons for us.


Here's the scenario. First, contemplate the horror of Aurora or Sandy Hook or Nickel Mines. Now, suppose it were possible to test anyone who wanted to buy a gun to see whether they would, at some point in the future, commit such a crime. Suppose the test was perfect--it would always correctly tell whether someone would commit mass murder, and never falsely yield a positive result for someone who wouldn't. Would you be in favor of restricting the right of a person to own a gun whose test came out positive? Now, the point is not to consider practical matters: of course, such a test will probably never exist. And even if one did, we would always have questions about its accuracy. These sorts of considerations are not the point: just suppose the test is perfectly accurate and we can be certain that it is. If the test says someone will take a gun one day and kill ten school children with it, they absolutely will do just that.


For me, this is a no-brainer--of course such a person's gun rights should be revoked. If such a test were reality, anyone who tested positive shouldn't have access to a gun.


But here's where things get interesting: suppose the test isn't perfect. Suppose it's almost perfect, though. Suppose it gives a correct result 99.999999 percent of the time, and only yields a false positive once out of every one million people tested. Should we employ the test?


I'm not sure. Here's how I see it breaking down: to say no virtually guarantees we'll have more mass murders which we could have prevented by restricting the rights of just a few people (at most, in our country at its current population, 300 people would be deprived of their rights--in all likelihood, probably about half that many would have their rights infringed). But on the other hand, to answer yes here means that a human person who hadn't done anything to deserve it will be deprived of a right. What do you think? If we had the option, should we follow and respect such a test, or not?

I wouldn't like the test even if it were 100% accurate. It just doesn't make any logical sense.

Let's say someone goes into a store to buy an AR-15. They are told that they can't buy one because the test says that in the future they're going to commit mass murder. Now things get screwy.

Either a paradox exists (without the gun, they can't commit mass murder, so the test is no longer accurate) or they're going to commit the mass murder anyway, maybe with a bomb, or poison, or an illegally-obtained gun, in which case the test is completely worthless.

Or, and here's the much scarier option, the test becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. They are told that some day they'll commit mass murder, so they're marked as dangerous and constantly monitored, which makes them snap and commit mass murder.

 

[Crimefree]

Here's the scenario. First, contemplate the horror of Aurora or Sandy Hook or Nickel Mines. Now, suppose it were possible to test anyone who wanted to buy a gun to see whether they would, at some point in the future, commit such a crime. Suppose the test was perfect--it would always correctly tell whether someone would commit mass murder, and never falsely yield a positive result for someone who wouldn't. Would you be in favor of restricting the right of a person to own a gun whose test came out positive? Now, the point is not to consider practical matters: of course, such a test will probably never exist. And even if one did, we would always have questions about its accuracy. These sorts of considerations are not the point: just suppose the test is perfectly accurate and we can be certain that it is. If the test says someone will take a gun one day and kill ten school children with it, they absolutely will do just that.

OK so this currently impossible test will predict mass murder with 100% accuracy.

For me, this is a no-brainer--of course such a person's gun rights should be revoked. If such a test were reality, anyone who tested positive shouldn't have access to a gun.

Now this is where your problem starts you have made an unevidenced assumption that only a person with a gun will commit mass murder, how accurate and valid is that?

If it is valid then what is it about guns that makes it valid? Should we not be testing guns to find what it is and either removing this for want of a description I'll just call it "evil influence". If it cannot be removed we could still test and destroy all guns with that "evil influence" and replace them with tested good guns or perhaps lock up the "evil influence" guns so they are harmless to cause such tragedy. If this test can predict what crimes will be committed and with what instrument. We just test all children and incarcerate the bad ones. Problem solved crime will not exist.

But here's where things get interesting: suppose the test isn't perfect. Suppose it's almost perfect, though. Suppose it gives a correct result 99.999999 percent of the time, and only yields a false positive once out of every one million people tested. Should we employ the test?

That would disarm about 100 people and those protected by that individual assuming the type of weapon can also be determined. What do we do with all the others we detect, let them go as they will not use a gun?

Would you send 100 people out into this world where they may be killed, raped, robbed, mugged, burglarised, injured or forced to do something they did not want to do? Or would you like it to be a collective decision of a bunch of people so one may claim my hands are not red with that blood as gun control advocates currently do?

I'm not sure. Here's how I see it breaking down: to say no virtually guarantees we'll have more mass murders which we could have prevented by restricting the rights of just a few people (at most, in our country at its current population, 300 people would be deprived of their rights--in all likelihood, probably about half that many would have their rights infringed). But on the other hand, to answer yes here means that a human person who hadn't done anything to deserve it will be deprived of a right. What do you think? If we had the option, should we follow and respect such a test, or not?

You are now compounding your assumption into a certainty, something every gun control advocate does. If guns have this influence the logical answer is let's test the guns they will not mind.

Now lets test this result on gun control advocates and see the results.

I will put a large sum of money on - Absolutely no agreement with test and replace removing "evil influence" guns. Which will prove that gun control advocates are not interested in the least with the reality or not of the impact of guns on society.

Is that what you wanted?

 

[ashurbanipal]

Just one small problem you made an assumption which is incorrect.

Part of the point of this kind of thought-experiment is that any assumptions you make, as long as they are logically consistent, are taken to be correct for the sake of discussion. Now, all of this is done in a subjunctive sense: no one is committed to saying they are actually true, just as no one is committed to saying that there are actually dinosaurs roaming around. We just get to imagine there are, and see what would follow.

1) gun control is not logical. Do you understand what that means?

No, I do not. Logic is a calculus by which we can test groups of sentences for consistency and validity. I think you mean to say that gun control isn't reasonable, and I agree that it is not. Or rather, I only think it would be if it were total--that is, if literally no creature in the universe could have one. History tells us that any population which surrenders its weapons to a government suffers evil consequences later. As horrible as events like Sandy Hook are, they are preferable to the consequences that would come about if we allowed gun control. We, as citizens, have a right to possess weapons that are the equal of any weapon any group, including our own government, could use against us.

Are you also assuming that gun cause something which can be the only logical point of further discussion. I really am trying hard to find what you saw interesting in the discussion other than getting people to discuss gun control.

I think first of all there is a pretty sharp disjunction between what gun control advocates want, and what would obtain in a world in which the test works and we used it. Gun control advocates want everyone's right to be restricted. In the "test" world, only the rights of a few people would be restricted. I think even the staunchest supporter of gun rights believes that at least some individuals shouldn't have access to guns. For example, I doubt anyone in the NRA believes that people who are currently in prison should possess guns. I suspect you would say that if a five-year-old wanders into a store without an adult, he shouldn't be allowed to just purchase a gun. Similarly, I think most advocates of gun rights tend to be OK with saying that if a person has committed a violent crime with a gun in the past, that person shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. These are commonsense rules that I suspect most gun right advocates support. The "test" world would only add another very small group of people to the list--only those who would actually turn out to be mass murderers.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Now this is where your problem starts you have made an unevidenced assumption that only a person with a gun will commit mass murder, how accurate and valid is that?

I don't see how that's implied in any way. There's a time-travel paradox that sometimes comes up: suppose a member of a time-travelling society is about to get on an airplane, when she is stopped by another member of the society, who tells her that if she gets on the plane, it will crash. She doesn't get on the plane, and it doesn't crash. One might think the time travellers got it wrong, but her getting on the plane may have been a direct cause of it crashing. Similarly, the idea of the test supposes that a person's getting a gun is a direct cause of their committing mass murder.

Would you send 100 people out into this world where they may be killed, raped, robbed, mugged, burglarised, injured or forced to do something they did not want to do? Or would you like it to be a collective decision of a bunch of people so one may claim my hands are not red with that blood as gun control advocates currently do?

The choice would be between one of the following two possibilities:

1) 100% probability that 1000 people are murdered

2) Small possibility up to roughly 500 people are murdered

The correct decision is pretty obvious, assuming the people in question are otherwise of average goodness and worth.

You are now compounding your assumption into a certainty, something every gun control advocate does. If guns have this influence the logical answer is let's test the guns they will not mind.

The fact that this is a thought experiment means I get to do that. A thought experiment works by setting some conditions, nevermind whether they're feasible, and then just seeing what follows. It's a certainty because that's part of the assumption.

Now, please read this next bit very carefully: this in no way means those assumptions carry over to the actual world. We conduct these thought experiments to learn something about our intuitions and basic beliefs, and only what we learn about those has any bearing on what we do in reality. Nothing about the proposed thought experiment, it seems to me, would support gun control. Actually, as I have argued, I think it tends to do the opposite.

So, once more, I agree the assumptions about the test aren't correct in the actual world. But to argue that this somehow invalidates the discussion is to miss the point. We just assume the test works as stated, and ask ourselves what we should do if that were so. This shouldn't be a big mystery; we do this kind of counter-factual reasoning all the time. Again, I'm never going to deliberately accelerate to 100 mph and drive into a large concrete pylon. But I can think about what would happen if I did. Similarly, the point of the thread is just to suppose we lived in a world where we could implement such a test, and it would be 100% accurate, we could know it was accurate with certainty, and all objections to whether it works or questions about how it works are laid to rest. What should we do, if we lived in such a world?

 

[ashurbanipal]

I wouldn't like the test even if it were 100% accurate. It just doesn't make any logical sense.

Let's say someone goes into a store to buy an AR-15. They are told that they can't buy one because the test says that in the future they're going to commit mass murder. Now things get screwy.

Either a paradox exists (without the gun, they can't commit mass murder, so the test is no longer accurate)

That doesn't seem to be a paradox to me. Suppose the purchase of the gun is a direct cause of the mass murder that would happen, were the purchase to happen. Without the purchase, there isn't sufficient causal power. As I just replied to CrimeFree, we can imagine an analogous situation: suppose a member of a time-travelling society is about to get on an airplane, when she is stopped by another member of her society, who informs her that if she gets on the plane, it will crash. She doesn't get on the plane, and it doesn't crash. Now maybe we'd think there was something wrong here, but it turns out there isn't: perhaps her getting on the plane was a direct cause of it crashing. When she didn't get on the plane, what caused it to crash no longer obtained in the actual world.

I don't think this is even so esoteric. If I wanted to kill someone (I don't, incidentally), the way I'd probably do it is with a rifle from far away. If I had to walk up and stab them, I might be less inclined to follow through.

Or, and here's the much scarier option, the test becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. They are told that some day they'll commit mass murder, so they're marked as dangerous and constantly monitored, which makes them snap and commit mass murder.

Hah! There's an interesting idea, and this is exactly the sort of speculation I was hoping would pop up. I'd never thought about that. Hmmmm...it's certainly a possibility. Any test of any kind alters the subject tested. If the test worked this way, obviously I wouldn't be for it, even if all the other conditions I've stated in this thread were to obtain.

 

[molten_dragon]

Suppose the purchase of the gun is a direct cause of the mass murder that would happen, were the purchase to happen. Without the purchase, there isn't sufficient causal power.

I don't think this is a good assumption though. A gun is used to commit mass murder simply because it's (in many cases) the most expedient way to do so. It's not the reason why the person did it, it's just a means to an end.

I don't think this is even so esoteric. If I wanted to kill someone (I don't, incidentally), the way I'd probably do it is with a rifle from far away. If I had to walk up and stab them, I might be less inclined to follow through.

I'm not sure that the kind of people who commit mass murder think this clearly though. A lot of them have psychological issues. I suspect many of them, if the test prevented them from buying a firearm legally, would just find a way around it. They'd steal one, or they'd buy one illegally, or they'd use explosives.

Basically, even this perfect test wouldn't work for the same reason that many real-world gun control measures wouldn't work. The people who intended to use the gun for an illegal purpose would just ignore the restriction or find a way around it.

 

[Methusala]

I don't think this is a good assumption though. A gun is used to commit mass murder simply because it's (in many cases) the most expedient way to do so. It's not the reason why the person did it, it's just a means to an end.



I'm not sure that the kind of people who commit mass murder think this clearly though. A lot of them have psychological issues. I suspect many of them, if the test prevented them from buying a firearm legally, would just find a way around it. They'd steal one, or they'd buy one illegally, or they'd use explosives.

Basically, even this perfect test wouldn't work for the same reason that many real-world gun control measures wouldn't work. The people who intended to use the gun for an illegal purpose would just ignore the restriction or find a way around it.

To stop shootings you need to eliminate the incentive. if there is no figment of this coming to mind, then there will be no shootings, yes?

So, if the shooter is unhappy, you need to satisfy them. i mean, we never know who the shooter will be, but they seem to reject society. these sorts of people will get in the face of people before they go on a spree, so will be easy to spot. i figure it should take two days of 'looking for light' from others, as they will need a day to compare it to, rationally, as they are all logical people usually, looking for a friend that understands them. so, be on the lookout for someone that is a lone wolf, usually males though. the problem is, they reject others because they were rejected, and this means they will, being socially active, send off warning signals to their parents. This should be a precaution of all gun owners with teens or children capable of shooting guns, yes?

The, i figure that they will take another day to run through their plan, or even think of it. this could mean another thirty hours or so, and the rest of the day to sneak the guns out. so, in all, it is a race against time, and the clock is set at at least three days. i suggest that there be student leaders in the highest grade looking out for this - they could do it by creating workshops where children fill out petitions and talk about why, or why not, they are signing them, 'jobs' where they compile media reports for local magazines or radio and even things to do where they earn money, like tutoring or getting tutored. this could replace a lot of classes, as, the children will halve their classes to talk about something education related instead of just talking - they will have a goal that is immediate, yes? this will make them more at ease i hope, and, up the grades too.

 

[Excon]

No, it isn't. It's provable in K semantics that necessarily (if G then S) is not derivable from if G, then (necessarily S). It's provable on S5 axioms by a much shorter route. The first proposition is what you would need to be true if your point were correct, because the further proposition possibly (if G then not S) is consistent with the second proposition. Ergo, God can view time as a finished whole, but the future nevertheless not be determined.

You are not paying attention. :doh
Again, you supposed we viewed that complete whole that G-d could see. Our viewing that complete whole is with the intent to change it. That is what we would be seeing.
If we don't act we we see the complete whole that we have not acted on.
If we will be acting on the complete whole as viewed by us, then we will see the the results of our action.

It seems that less harm is caused the person by preventing them from getting a gun, rather than putting them in jail for attempted murder. I would rather suffer the former than the latter, since the latter encompasses the former plus many more deprivations as well.

Less harm?
If the person is stopped in carrying out the act, no harm is done. And the person can then be (as already stated) found guilty of attempt.
Which is actually being guilty of doing something. Not for not having done something.

 

[Crimefree]

I don't think this is a good assumption though. A gun is used to commit mass murder simply because it's (in many cases) the most expedient way to do so. It's not the reason why the person did it, it's just a means to an end.

I'm not sure that the kind of people who commit mass murder think this clearly though. A lot of them have psychological issues. I suspect many of them, if the test prevented them from buying a firearm legally, would just find a way around it. They'd steal one, or they'd buy one illegally, or they'd use explosives.

Basically, even this perfect test wouldn't work for the same reason that many real-world gun control measures wouldn't work. The people who intended to use the gun for an illegal purpose would just ignore the restriction or find a way around it.

The error is the basic assumption that it is possible to prevent a person from doing what they want to do by denial of one of many possible objects or obtaining that object by many possible alternatives means. The reality is nether the desire or intent to commit the act have been addressed.

One could truly say it is the choice of ideologically blind people blinded by emotional feelings about the object in preference to consideration for the root causes. Hence "ideologically blind"

 

[ashurbanipal]

You are not paying attention.
Again, you supposed we viewed that complete whole that G-d could see.

That's not quite what I said. What I said is: suppose the test works because it derives information from the mind of God. Not: the test allows us to see things as God sees them. There's a difference--the same difference between asking someone some question to which a truthful answer is given, and having their subjective experience of the world.

Our viewing that complete whole is with the intent to change it. That is what we would be seeing.

Nope. Again, you're ignoring the scope of the modal quantifier.

If we don't act we we see the complete whole that we have not acted on.
If we will be acting on the complete whole as viewed by us, then we will see the the results of our action.

Again, nope. You're ignoring the possibility of counterfactuals, which have to be taken into account here. Go to a university, get into a graduate program in philosophy, and take a class on modal logic at the graduate level. You'll get all the proofs necessary in the course of that education. I sketched out the gist of it earlier in this thread, but I'm not going to post the full formal proofs. For one thing, they take too long. For another, the symbols commonly used aren't available. And for another, I doubt anyone would understand it anyway.

Less harm?
If the person is stopped in carrying out the act, no harm is done. And the person can then be (as already stated) found guilty of attempt.

We stop them by not selling them a gun. That's how the test works in the imaginary world contemplated in this thread. It does more harm to incarcerate someone than to just not sell them a gun. Suppose someone gave you such a choice: most people can buy guns, it's just that you cannot. You can otherwise go about your business in the world. Or, you can go to jail for the rest of your life, and not only not have a gun, but have most of your other freedoms taken away also. I know which I'd choose.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I don't think this is a good assumption though. A gun is used to commit mass murder simply because it's (in many cases) the most expedient way to do so. It's not the reason why the person did it, it's just a means to an end.

Why does it have to be a good assumption? It's one assumption that underwrites the thought experiment. We're just saying "look, suppose things worked this way. What then?" The point is to simply ignore, for the sake of discussion, all the practicalities that would prevent such a test from existing, in order to confront the situation.

I'm not sure that the kind of people who commit mass murder think this clearly though. A lot of them have psychological issues. I suspect many of them, if the test prevented them from buying a firearm legally, would just find a way around it. They'd steal one, or they'd buy one illegally, or they'd use explosives.

Here's how the test works in the possible world we are imagining: it just bloody-well does. Doesn't matter how. The deal is, we sell this person a gun, they commit mass murder. We don't, they don't. End of story. Imagine we live in a world where there is such a test. Do we use it? Or not? Or sometimes? Or what? That's what I'm asking here.

 

[ashurbanipal]

The error is the basic assumption that it is possible to prevent a person from doing what they want to do by denial of one of many possible objects or obtaining that object by many possible alternatives means. The reality is nether the desire or intent to commit the act have been addressed.

One could truly say it is the choice of ideologically blind people blinded by emotional feelings about the object in preference to consideration for the root causes. Hence "ideologically blind"

I agree this would be an error if we were thinking this way about the actual world. But we're thinking about possible worlds in this thread, where anything can be the case so long as it doesn't involve a formal contradiction (see below). Just imagine a world in which such a test works. A world in which, if we don't sell the person a gun, they don't commit mass murder. Just assume that's true about an imaginary world, which is otherwise similar to ours. What should we do in such a world? Should we use the test, or not?

A little on what I mean by "formal contradiction." Suppose I said "I've found a four-sided triangle!" You'd know I'd have to be lying, because there cannot be four sided triangles. In no possible world could something be a triangle, and have four sides-it's having four sides just means it's not a triangle. But suppose instead I said "human beings have twelve fingers!" While it's contradicted by facts in the actual world, it's possible we might have all had twelve fingers. That doesn't involve a formal contradiction.

 

[Excon]

That's not quite what I said. What I said is: suppose the test works because it derives information from the mind of God. Not: the test allows us to see things as God sees them. There's a difference--the same difference between asking someone some question to which a truthful answer is given, and having their subjective experience of the world.


Nope. Again, you're ignoring the scope of the modal quantifier.


Again, nope. You're ignoring the possibility of counterfactuals, which have to be taken into account here. Go to a university, get into a graduate program in philosophy, and take a class on modal logic at the graduate level. You'll get all the proofs necessary in the course of that education. I sketched out the gist of it earlier in this thread, but I'm not going to post the full formal proofs. For one thing, they take too long. For another, the symbols commonly used aren't available. And for another, I doubt anyone would understand it anyway.

Been there done that. So again, "nope", you still are wrong.
As soon as we act to change the future we will be seeing that change. Period.
Unless we are speaking about looking into a different dimension, which you were not talking about.

We stop them by not selling them a gun. That's how the test works in the imaginary world contemplated in this thread. It does more harm to incarcerate someone than to just not sell them a gun. Suppose someone gave you such a choice: most people can buy guns, it's just that you cannot. You can otherwise go about your business in the world. Or, you can go to jail for the rest of your life, and not only not have a gun, but have most of your other freedoms taken away also. I know which I'd choose.

"Nope". Freedom, or in this case, the illusion of freedom is far more important.
Stopping them from legally purchasing a firearm may not stop them from committing the crime, as a firearm can be obtained through other means.
Arrest them in the attempt, as that is an actual crime. That solves any dilemma in your scenario, regardless if you don't like putting folks in prison for breaking the law.

You have my answer, and I am pretty sure that nothing you can present will change it.
You are welcome to try, but I am almost positive we will not be getting anywhere form here.

 

[Flamethrower]

I'm against gun control in almost all its forms. History tells us that people who give up their weapons inevitably regret it, usually while also giving up a great deal of blood, freedom, or both. Of course, there are obvious and reasonable exceptions. People currently incarcerated probably shouldn't be allowed to have guns. A five-year-old child probably shouldn't be able to walk into a store and buy a gun. Common sense.


I want to propose a thought experiment, and I want to hear from opponents of gun control on this idea. Let me preface this by noting that I'm a professional philosopher, and as such, I love to dream up scenarios that couldn't ever actually happen, with the idea that those scenarios can nevertheless hold some valuable lessons for us.


Here's the scenario. First, contemplate the horror of Aurora or Sandy Hook or Nickel Mines. Now, suppose it were possible to test anyone who wanted to buy a gun to see whether they would, at some point in the future, commit such a crime. Suppose the test was perfect--it would always correctly tell whether someone would commit mass murder, and never falsely yield a positive result for someone who wouldn't. Would you be in favor of restricting the right of a person to own a gun whose test came out positive? Now, the point is not to consider practical matters: of course, such a test will probably never exist. And even if one did, we would always have questions about its accuracy. These sorts of considerations are not the point: just suppose the test is perfectly accurate and we can be certain that it is. If the test says someone will take a gun one day and kill ten school children with it, they absolutely will do just that.


For me, this is a no-brainer--of course such a person's gun rights should be revoked. If such a test were reality, anyone who tested positive shouldn't have access to a gun.


But here's where things get interesting: suppose the test isn't perfect. Suppose it's almost perfect, though. Suppose it gives a correct result 99.999999 percent of the time, and only yields a false positive once out of every one million people tested. Should we employ the test?


I'm not sure. Here's how I see it breaking down: to say no virtually guarantees we'll have more mass murders which we could have prevented by restricting the rights of just a few people (at most, in our country at its current population, 300 people would be deprived of their rights--in all likelihood, probably about half that many would have their rights infringed). But on the other hand, to answer yes here means that a human person who hadn't done anything to deserve it will be deprived of a right. What do you think? If we had the option, should we follow and respect such a test, or not?

I think you were the same guy explaining what a fallacy was.

A traumatic brain injury or insult can cause massive behavioral shifts. The best case of this was a guy who had a crowbar impale his head. His personality and emotions were never the same afterwards. The U of Texas Tower shooter also had a brain tumor that could have possibly caused his shooting rampage---but more likely he had anger issues.

It is a fallacy to think a test like you imagine could have any real predictable value.

A better test would be to look at one's criminal history. If they are too violent, then remove them from society.

 

[molten_dragon]

Why does it have to be a good assumption? It's one assumption that underwrites the thought experiment. We're just saying "look, suppose things worked this way. What then?" The point is to simply ignore, for the sake of discussion, all the practicalities that would prevent such a test from existing, in order to confront the situation.



Here's how the test works in the possible world we are imagining: it just bloody-well does. Doesn't matter how. The deal is, we sell this person a gun, they commit mass murder. We don't, they don't. End of story. Imagine we live in a world where there is such a test. Do we use it? Or not? Or sometimes? Or what? That's what I'm asking here.

I only find thought experiments useful as they pertain to the real world. You're pretty much going out of your way to cut off any relevance this one had to the real world, so I'm losing interest pretty fast.

 

[Crimefree]

I agree this would be an error if we were thinking this way about the actual world. But we're thinking about possible worlds in this thread, where anything can be the case so long as it doesn't involve a formal contradiction (see below). Just imagine a world in which such a test works. A world in which, if we don't sell the person a gun, they don't commit mass murder. Just assume that's true about an imaginary world, which is otherwise similar to ours. What should we do in such a world? Should we use the test, or not?

Why on earth if such a test worked would it be limited to guns? Why not apply it to everything. As you are born apply test and start punishment and denial immediately. Why wait or apply it only to guns. What's wrong with plain old murder, rape, child molestation, bank robbery, assault..... that only guns are important?

I'll also ask you to give some indication of how many crimes would be prevented by removal of legal sources of guns or all guns from those you detect becasue you are obviously implying guns create the urge to use it without providing evidence of that implication or that this test would actually be of any use even if it worked.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I think you were the same guy explaining what a fallacy was.

I've explained, or tried to explain, multiple times on these boards, what a fallacy is.

A traumatic brain injury or insult can cause massive behavioral shifts. The best case of this was a guy who had a crowbar impale his head. His personality and emotions were never the same afterwards.

The case of Phineas Gage is rather overblown. There's a pretty massive gulf between what doctors and journalists said about his case, and the evidence his case presents. But why do you mention him?

It is a fallacy to think a test like you imagine could have any real predictable value.

For the love of God, why? The point is just to imagine a world in which there is a test that works the way I've said. What should we do if that world were the actual world?

I think you were the same guy explaining what a fallacy was.

I've explained, or tried to explain, multiple times on these boards, what a fallacy is.

A traumatic brain injury or insult can cause massive behavioral shifts. The best case of this was a guy who had a crowbar impale his head. His personality and emotions were never the same afterwards.

The case of Phineas Gage is rather overblown. There's a pretty massive gulf between what doctors and journalists said about his case, and the evidence his case presents. But why do you mention him?

It is a fallacy to think a test like you imagine could have any real predictable value.

For the love of God, why? The point is just to imagine a world in which there is a test that works the way I've said. What should we do if that world were the actual world?

 

[ashurbanipal]

I only find thought experiments useful as they pertain to the real world. You're pretty much going out of your way to cut off any relevance this one had to the real world, so I'm losing interest pretty fast.

I've already posted, earlier in the thread, one way in which I think contemplation of this idea has practical import. Basically, if one considers the scenario as presented, one is forced to weigh the right to bear arms against the right to life, because were such a test to exist, it would present just that dilemma. Our intuitions ground our moral reasoning, and it seems fairly important to understand our intuitions for just that reason.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Why on earth if such a test worked would it be limited to guns?

Because that's the possible world you're asked to contemplate in this thread. Just imagine that the world works that way. What should we do in such a world?

 

[ashurbanipal]

Flamethrower,

I'm not sure what happened on that post, but I didn't intend to post everything twice...