I think we need a morons with guns thrad

[SkepticX]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nonsense. You can be firmly convinced of something that is not true. It only refers to a state of belief, and does not say anything about to whether or not you have justified that belief beforehand by checking.

"Convinced" is a problem in this case because whether a gun is loaded or not far too easy a thing to test, and it's far too important to be treated casually by anyone whose self-preservation inclinations aren't suppressed for whatever reason, strong self-preservation tendencies being the norm in humans. Being convinced by deception or because of a confusing situation simply don't apply here. So "being firmly convinced" in this case, no matter the semantics, presumes the very issue I'm arguing isn't as clear as it seems to many--the issue that makes the photo work as a "morons with guns" thing, and makes it work as humor.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by SkepticX

Exactly zero.

You're using "convinced" as if it meant "assumed".

To be "firmly convinced" would require firm convincing--i.e. a proper check.

So no one has ever shot him or herself with a gun he/she was firmly convinced wasn't loaded.

But these last few posts have demonstrated the special fear about guns that most would have to overcome in order to really think about them soberly.

I own 5 guns (4 long guns and one revolver). I am not afraid of any of them.

[SkepticX]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I own 5 guns (4 long guns and one revolver). I am not afraid of any of them.

Would you feel comfortable ensuring it's not loaded, close the cylinder and then looking down the barrel? Do you think you could ensure it's not loaded, put it to your head and squeeze the trigger?

I don't recommend doing either of those things (I know I'd have trouble with either, especially the second), but if we really think of guns as the simple machines they are we should have no trouble realizing that without ammo they're no more dangerous than paperweights. This is the magical thinking I'm talking about. With many, mainly non-gun owners and people without any real experience with them the magic runs much deeper--clearly drives much of their thinking about guns.

[Dingfod]

I witnessed my best friend almost shoot his mother with a .22 rifle he thought was empty. I am so confident that my shotgun is currently not loaded and would have no fear looking down the barrel and pulling the trigger. I'm not sure I would do that with my Marlin .22 rifle, rounds in those seem to appear out of nowhere at times, lurking up the magazine tube, I guess.

[Dingfod]

One of these things isn't like the others...

[LadyShea]

Not necessarily a moron, but at 5 years old also not mature and responsible.

White said the boy received the .22-caliber rifle as a gift, but it wasn’t clear who gave him the gun, which is known as a Crickett.

“It’s a little rifle for a kid. ... The little boy’s used to shooting the little gun,” White said.

The company that makes the rifle, Milton, Pa.-based Keystone Sporting Arms, has a “Kids Corner” on its website with pictures of young boys and girls at shooting ranges and on bird and deer hunts. It says the company produced 60,000 Crickett and Chipmunk rifles for kids in 2008. The smaller rifles are sold with a mount to use at a shooting range. Coroner: 5-year-old boy shoots 2-year-old sister in Kentucky with rifle he got as a gift - The Washington Post

[Ari]

Whoever left the gun within easy access is the moron.
I got a RedRyder BB gun at around that age, it was enjoyable, destroyed paper and cans just fine without the ability to accidentally kill people. I still have it too.

For target practice a pellet gun is as fun as a real gun at a fraction of the cost, and it's a lot harder to randomly kill people (although they aren't macho so companies have had to camo things up and BS on their packages about the power to make guys feel more manly when their over powered gun shreds the pellet and misses the target).

[Dingfod]

You'll shoot your eye out, kid.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by SkepticX

"Convinced" is a problem in this case because whether a gun is loaded or not far too easy a thing to test, and it's far too important to be treated casually by anyone whose self-preservation inclinations aren't suppressed for whatever reason, strong self-preservation tendencies being the norm in humans. Being convinced by deception or because of a confusing situation simply don't apply here. So "being firmly convinced" in this case, no matter the semantics, presumes the very issue I'm arguing isn't as clear as it seems to many--the issue that makes the photo work as a "morons with guns" thing, and makes it work as humor.

Still doesn't work. You can check a gun the day before and be convinced that no-one has come in and re-loaded it in the mean time. Hell you could have done it yourself and have forgotten. You can not realize you checked the chamber in poor light and missed that it actually WAS loaded. Only recently someone blew his brains out with a gun he thought was empty: checks the chamber, sees there is nothing in it, cocks it, does not realize the next chamber WAS loaded... Boom/splat. Was it trivially easy to check if the next chamber had a bullet in it? Yeah. And yet he was convinced enough to put the gun to his head and pull the trigger, and he was wrong. That is not semantics. Semantics do not feature gobs of pink goo on the walls, as a rule. Unless someone has come up with a blood-sport that features scenes of both excruciating pedantry and bloody violence that I am not aware of.

The thing about instruments designed to blow people's brains out is that you do not aim them at living creatures unless you intend to use them, because you ought to treat them in such a way that even if everything goes wrong and there is some mad gun-loading cat-burglar about (dressed, I imagine, in a slightly more sinister version of the Ronald Mcdonald outfit) you are still not going to do any damage to yourself or other people.

That is not superstition or irrationality. That is just an acceptance of the fact that they are instruments designed to permanently destroy living creatures in the most convenient and effortless way possible.

[SkepticX]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Still doesn't work ...

Actually your argument for that position further demonstrates that it does. Every case you claim is an example of a "test" that's "not too casual" for whether the gun is loaded or not is either negligent or a definite fail.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The thing about instruments designed to blow people's brains out is that you do not aim them at living creatures unless you intend to use them, because you ought to treat them in such a way that even if everything goes wrong and there is some mad gun-loading cat-burglar about (dressed, I imagine, in a slightly more sinister version of the Ronald Mcdonald outfit) you are still not going to do any damage to yourself or other people.

That is not superstition or irrationality. That is just an acceptance of the fact that they are instruments designed to permanently destroy living creatures in the most convenient and effortless way possible.

That was a pretty effective use of emotive language, but it also entirely missed the point while again demonstrating it. A gun that is factually sans ammo is a collection of harmless parts--well, harmless as any other chunk of metal anyway. That's an unequivocal fact. You're just ignoring that key premise and acting as if you're still addressing the same issue (in each case your argument could accurately translate "but if you don't actually do a proper check, and you haven't really ensured the gun isn't loaded, then ... ), and while you're right about safety rules, you're talking about the good reasons for the safety rules, not the point that we treat this particular inert, harmless chunk of metal very differently from most (again, remember the "factually sans ammo" premise), and we have a very hard time getting around the irrational fear that a gun that has really been properly established as empty (a non-bullshit/failed "check", but rather a valid, proper check that demonstrates there's really no ammo) is still threatening in a much more ominous sense than another chunk of metal that's not a gun (and I frankly seriously doubt the claims of those who have posted they'd be fine with doing a proper check to ensure a gun isn't loaded and then pulling the trigger while looking down the barrel). As I said before, I'm the same way. I'm not advocating that anyone do this, and I'm not saying those who like me aren't going to try it are somehow unreasonable or wrong or whatever, but it is irrational to fear an object that's been proven harmless ... or I suppose it's arguable we can all blame it on training in some form or other, but if we accept that as a valid excuse we need to consider the larger implications of that standard.

[Clutch Munny]

Indeed, for any behaviour-type that appears palpably unsafe, we can specify circumstances under which it would not lead to harm. Namely, the circumstances that are defined as "so constituted as to not lead to harm." There are no counterexamples.

Hence, no matter how unsafe a behaviour-type one points to, it is sensible and correct -- and illustrative of a particularly nuanced and deep understanding -- to say, "Oh, that's not really unsafe in practice, provided that it's not really unsafe in practice, whatever would be required to make that so."

[Ari]

Originally Posted by SkepticX

A gun that is factually sans ammo is a collection of harmless parts--well, harmless as any other chunk of metal anyway.

Well duh. Yeah we totally get this part.
Unfortunately they aren't that useful without the bullets so people like to put them in the gun.

Originally Posted by SkepticX

reasons for the safety rules, not the point that we treat this particular inert, harmless chunk of metal very differently from most

You keep talking about safety rules... You do know the #1 gun safety rule is to always assume it's loaded and ready to fire, right?
This doesn't mean run away from the gun because it's scary, it means don't point the barrel end at things you don't want a bullet through. There's a big difference between fear and respect. There's also a big difference between rigid logical arguments and real world complexity.

(Since you are new here I should point out, some here have been in the military, others may live next to gun ranges.)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ari

You do know the #1 gun safety rule is to always assume it's loaded and ready to fire, right?

But what if we assume a hypothetical situation in which that gun is arbitrarily declared to be unloaded? YOUR SAFETY RULE LOOKS PRETTY IRRATIONAL NOW, DOESN'T IT? INERT METAL!

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Ari

You do know the #1 gun safety rule is to always assume it's loaded and ready to fire, right?

That was drilled into me from the very first time I ever held a firearm: always, always, always assume that a firearm is loaded -- no matter how thoroughly you think you've checked to ensure that it isn't.

Consequently, Rule #2 was: Never, ever point a gun at anything -- no matter how sure you are that the gun is unloaded -- unless you're prepared to shoot that thing.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Indeed, for any behaviour-type that appears palpably unsafe, we can specify circumstances under which it would not lead to harm. Namely, the circumstances that are defined as "so constituted as to not lead to harm." There are no counterexamples.

Hence, no matter how unsafe a behaviour-type one points to, it is sensible and correct -- and illustrative of a particularly nuanced and deep understanding -- to say, "Oh, that's not really unsafe in practice, provided that it's not really unsafe in practice, whatever would be required to make that so."

Do we have a head-spinning smilie?

#2933

[Watser?]

[BrotherMan]

[SkepticX]

Originally Posted by Ari

You do know the #1 gun safety rule is to always assume it's loaded and ready to fire, right?

Answered at least a few times already, if you read my recent posts.

[SkepticX]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That was drilled into me from the very first time I ever held a firearm: always, always, always assume that a firearm is loaded -- no matter how thoroughly you think you've checked to ensure that it isn't.

Consequently, Rule #2 was: Never, ever point a gun at anything -- no matter how sure you are that the gun is unloaded -- unless you're prepared to shoot that thing.

Yup. My training as well. Never suggested anything different, nor anything to suggest I'm not fully aware of basic gun safety, nor anything to suggest I have any issue with gun safety. Quite the contrary in fact.

As I've pointed out in pretty much every post on this, I don't advocate testing my argument, which itself isn't rational but rather more about indoctrination. But behaving based upon indoctrination, even when benevolent and healthy, isn't rational.

The fact everyone is having such issues with the actual point is demonstrating I'm right at every step. So far everyone is either blatantly misrepresenting my point, ignoring the most important premise, or defending the idea that it's entirely rational to fear a gun that has been carefully proven to be as harmless as a paperweight. That's defending indoctrination that runs counter to evidence.

I have this same fear, if anything probably more so than most of you. I can't even bring myself to support proving my own argument in practice much less do so myself. It's a functional and quite arguably healthy fear, but that doesn't mean it's rational. The real difference between my position and that of those who are having such trouble with this is that they can't accept they're doing something irrational, or that irrational can be healthy (an irrational fear of germs is another case).

It's a fact, and an obvious one, that a gun can be quite easily rendered as harmless as a paperweight--clearly and factually and demonstrably so. How could it still be, with definitive proof that a gun is currently in that state (and without ignoring that very simple, clearly true premise), rational to fear such a gun any more than a paperweight? You have to either prove that it's not possible to be certain a gun isn't loaded (a notion that requires magical thinking--the same kind of equivocation that believers use to argue that atheism isn't rational), or that a gun can still somehow fire a bullet when it's not loaded.

[Crumb]

Or perhaps you just need to be unwilling to bet your life on your own infallibility.

[SkepticX]

Originally Posted by Crumb

Or perhaps you just need to be unwilling to bet your life on your own infallibility.

Chalk another one up for ignoring the premise. Why presume the proof has to be a solo endeavor? Even still though, as I pointed out, it's a very simple thing to prove. Unless of course you believe in magic bullets or magic guns. If the gun is cleared and empty the moment before, it'll still be clear the moment after unless you've somehow loaded it without noticing, which is something that requires some pretty deliberate actions.

This is very much like arguing that atheism (hard/positive) irrational because you can't be absolutely 100% certain no god exists ... as if that's a rational standard of certainty, or one that we use for any other case (except perhaps guns, and maybe drugs--other areas in which we're by and large irrational, in other words).

And I remind yous that I've already made it quite clear I share this particular irrational fear.

[But]

I'm a moron and I have guns. Any ideas?

[Ari]

Originally Posted by SkepticX

It's a fact, and an obvious one, that a gun can be quite easily rendered as harmless as a paperweight--clearly and factually and demonstrably so. How could it still be, with definitive proof that a gun is currently in that state (and without ignoring that very simple, clearly true premise), rational to fear such a gun any more than a paperweight? You have to either prove that it's not possible to be certain a gun isn't loaded (a notion that requires magical thinking--the same kind of equivocation that believers use to argue that atheism isn't rational), or that a gun can still somehow fire a bullet when it's not loaded.

Clearly those are the only two options!

No one here says you should believe a gun is loaded when it's not like some sort of cracker into The-Ammo-of-Christ. Many are saying you should *handle* it that way. There's certainly a difference. Yes this is indoctrination if you consider forming habits indoctrination. As humans are often habit based critters, getting used to proper practice is a good idea, that way it's done almost as a reflex.

In the case of your premise a paper weight won't actually fire a bullet when combined together so they aren't really the same thing. To really make the gun a paperweight something like the firing pin needs to be taken out, barrel filled with concrete, etc. and in that case I've certainly walked in front of decommissioned arms.

[But]

And have you noticed anything when you walk in front of decommissioned barrels? No? Then you haven't paid attention.

[SkepticX]

Originally Posted by Ari

Clearly those are the only two options!

Yeah, I think so--could be mistaken, but what other options can you come up with to explain how fear of the wrong end of a gun that's just been proven unloaded is rational without using straw men or ignoring premises?

Also, where did you see anything about a gun being a paperweight or a complete equivalent?

Originally Posted by Ari

No one here says you should believe a gun is loaded when it's not like some sort of cracker into The-Ammo-of-Christ. Many are saying you should *handle* it that way. There's certainly a difference. Yes this is indoctrination if you consider forming habits indoctrination. As humans are often habit based critters, getting used to proper practice is a good idea, that way it's done almost as a reflex.

I also advocate following the basic gun safety rules. Nothing I've written suggests otherwise. I've made that very clear, repeatedly. Several others have been confused about that being the issue here, but it's still, in fact, not. The issue is the irrational fear of a harmless object, such as an unloaded gun, which is, in fact, just as harmless as a paperweight (not actually a paperweight or the same in every respect as a paperweight). Change the subject to a loaded gun and we're talking about a different topic altogether. It's like I'm talking about the idea that standing in front of a parked car being harmless, and you then "refute" the point by arguing it is dangerous to stand in front of a car going 100 mph. Well ... yeah ... it's also impertinent to my point about a parked car.

Originally Posted by Ari

In the case of your premise a paper weight won't actually fire a bullet when combined together so they aren't really the same thing. To really make the gun a paperweight something like the firing pin needs to be taken out, barrel filled with concrete, etc. and in that case I've certainly walked in front of decommissioned arms.

I've walked in front of a lot of fully functional guns--always with their chambers cleared and locked open (and I've always felt a slight twinge of misgiving when doing so). That's how it works when you go down range to set up and/or check your target at a gun range, and I've put in quite a few hours at gun ranges over the years. That's why I'm pretty sure I have at least as much irrational fear of the wrong end of guns as most in here. It's been rather thoroughly drilled into me.

I'd even grant a removed firing pin and the vast majority of us (again, us, meaning myself included) would still have the irrational fear of being on the wrong end of the barrel. Hell, a lot of people would be terrified to learn there was a gun in the same room with them without a cop or a troop to supervise it, probably even if the slide and the receiver weren't connected.

Regardless, it's magical thinking to fear the wrong end of an unloaded gun even if you just cleared it, and I'd argue that, at the same time, if you understand what a gun is it's a near certainty you'd experience that fear, just as I do.

Anyway ... frankly I think it's pretty clear to an objective observer that my point has been made, confirmed, and even indirectly demonstrated several times now. The resistance to my position has almost all been entirely based upon this defense mechanism of perceived uncertainty where there pretty obviously really isn't any. If you clear a gun and double check the chamber confirming it's unloaded, it's not an ambiguous matter and it's not somehow going to load itself, yet it's pretty clear we'd all fear looking down the barrel having just cleared and double checked the chamber (and again, I certainly don't recommend doing so).

Unless someone can offer some other reason it's presumed the dude shooting a picture down his pistol barrel in that pic is inherently being a moron, that's what we're talking about here. Granted, he's violating the most basic safety rules, but if he just cleared the thing what does he have to fear? Why is he inherently being such a moron if it's very likely he just proved the thing is unloaded and harmless before taking the picture?

...

And now I expect we'll get right back to straw men/changing or just ignoring my premises, thereby back to repeatedly and consistently demonstrating my point.