2013-01-19, 17:53 | Link #1221 | ||
On a mission
Author
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2013-01-19, 17:56 | Link #1222 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
Why not guns?
__________________
|
|
2013-01-19, 17:59 | Link #1223 | |
1.048596
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Location?
|
Quote:
And a gun will totally take down drones with Hellfire missiles. Of course.
__________________
|
|
2013-01-19, 18:01 | Link #1224 | |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
I agree with you that perception is a big factor, it's why some people are deathly afraid of flying in airplanes, but doesn't give a second thought about driving - even though statistically flying is far safer than driving. My point is that is it a good idea to draft laws and policies based on emotions like that? To your specific counterpoint, I'd argue that the ability to own a gun gives one the choice to fight back. Now, I'm guessing you were talking more about people who does not want to own guns, but even then how is it any different than people who gets killed by drunk/texting drivers? All I'm trying to point out here is that there is a distinct double standard being applied here, and it's one where I see little logical reasoning to support. |
|
2013-01-19, 18:02 | Link #1225 |
Banned
|
I'd like to address the issue of the rationale behind guns, and alcohol and tobacco.
The US tried Prohibition once. Far more violent crime and death resulted. So, from a purely logical standpoint looking at reducing lives lost, the rational response was to legalize alcohol. Same with guns. If more lives are lost due to guns being legal (or at least lightly regulate), then the logical response in order to reduce death, is to ban/heavily regulate guns. Note that, if we ban guns (or heavily regulate them), and after 10 years, the cost in lives is higher, then I would support loosening regulations on guns again. But how do we do banning or heavily regulating guns won't work, until we try? If we truly cannot compare the US to any other country, then the ONLY way to know if banning/heavily regulating guns will work in the US, is to try. All across the country. To those who are gun rights people, would you at least be willing to test it out? Say, a period of 10-20 years (because we need adequate time for guns to be cleaned up and several years worth of results). I am willing to be proved wrong. Are you? |
2013-01-19, 18:07 | Link #1226 | |
On a mission
Author
|
Quote:
Secondly, just because I may die anyways does not mean I should just let it happen. When it comes to death, options, regardless of how ineffective they are must be taken. And of course your hyperbolic statements about defending against tyranny is lol. History has shown us that it's easier to conquer than to occupy. Hey, with all our drones and shit, we've certainly pacified Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. Oh wait. Urban Warfare. A rebellion in the United States will be bloody. I mean how else did the US lose to Vietnam anyways? One reason is that the populace had huge opposition to the war. If we're doing a doomsday scenario where the government is seized by some insane tyrant that's like Hitler and wants to nuke the world, then we're fucked. But in these cases, it'd doesn't matter anyways.
__________________
|
|
2013-01-19, 18:07 | Link #1227 | ||
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2013-01-19, 18:14 | Link #1228 |
reading #hikaributts
Join Date: Feb 2009
|
IMO those 3 kind of deaths on yourself are "self inflicted". With the exception of alohol abuse in some cases, you are killing just yourself with tabacco and unhealthy food and not the people around you. Alcohol abuse is somewhat similar to how drugs abuse as it will kill the user on the long/short term, but the side effects of alcohol and drugs can kill others in certain situations.
|
2013-01-19, 18:14 | Link #1229 | |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
As as purely theoretical experiment, I would be interested to see what the result would be. Unfortunately, I'd say even you would agree that what you're proposing isn't very practical with how our legal/political system is setup. Maybe if we were a totalitarian regime, it'd be doable. Indeed, but then the gun death figure also includes suicides, which are certainly self-inflicted as well. Many drunk driving fatalities are not self-inflicted, nor are those that die from second-hand smoke, kids certainly didn't decide they want to be born diabetic, or have parents who stuff them with nothing but junk food. |
|
2013-01-19, 18:19 | Link #1230 | |
On a mission
Author
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2013-01-19, 18:19 | Link #1231 |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
The difference between gun deaths and alcohol deaths is that alcohol deaths are accidental, gun deaths are (usually) intentional. One a crime of omission, the other of commission.
People view the two under seperate categories. Alchohol related deaths are caused by "negligence", while gun related deaths is caused by "evil". Evil is judged much more severely then negligence. Similar arguments also apply to Terrorism. Far less people die to terrorism then to drunk driving, and yet look at the how much money is spent on counter-terrorism... For what it's worth, drunk driving is about 20k deaths a year, and gun related deaths is 30k a year, but 2/3 of gun related deaths are suicides. |
2013-01-19, 18:26 | Link #1233 | ||
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2013-01-19, 18:27 | Link #1234 | |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
But there is a clear distinction here - in one you blame the root cause of of said death - the driver who decided to get drunk and get in a car, yet in the other you're blaming the tool - the gun the criminal used. Again, I understand the sentiment, but is it a good way to craft your policies based on emotions? Indeed, that's my thought as well. But that hasn't stopped people blaming the suicide on the guns |
|
2013-01-19, 18:28 | Link #1235 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
It is as simple as that. Without arms to wage war against such a dictatorship we have little or no chance of removal. Quote:
The Mohajadeen defeated the Soviet military with only small arms, after 27 years of war and the Soviets were using tanks, attack helicopters, and the like. In fact, we are losing in Afghanistan to similar forces. Quote:
Quote:
That becomes something of a chore and then attempting to compare that to the UK which uses their own method of criminal statistics poisons the waters even further. Thus it really does become an "apples to oranges" scenario since we are talking about making policy based on statistics that are not compatible in the first place when any attempt at being specific is tried. Thus we are stuck with generalities like violent crime. Quote:
The crime reports within the US are uniform, and thus states can be compared. Quote:
I've yet to read any study that definitely shows any benefit from gun control, and I've read quite a few, some even suggested here in this thread. What we are actually left with is the question: "Does this policy infringe on the rights of citizens?" Short answer with regard to current gun control proposals is yes. As I have already illustrated. Quote:
I'm just using the data that is most compatable because it is the only way I've seen thus far to make any sort of accurate comparison. The UK has been declared the most dangerous country in Europe, and according to the Telegraph has more violent crime than the US. I'd say they would know. Quote:
That way, it doesn't matter what the weapon of choice is, there is a chance of reducing the number of dead significantly. Whereas no ban on any gun will do that as even Mayor Bloomberg has admitted with regard to the Newtown shooting. Quote:
There is no such thing as "gun crime" that is another made up term used by hoplophobes. Quote:
CCW permits have worked best, and that is the path we as a nation need to follow, lest the violent crime skyrocket and get worse. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In fact in the DC vs Heller case they affirmed the 2nd amendment to be a protection of an individual right and deferred to US vs Miller as to what arms are protected. Here is Scalia's opinion: Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. Thus military style weapons are not bannable. Now, since a .38 caliber revolver is the most used pistol/firearm in violent crime/murder, that would be the best weapon to ban, since it is not a military weapon it is not protected under either Heller, or the Miller decision. Quote:
It is SCOTUS that set the bar in US vs. Miller, not I. Nerve gas is not used by miltia forces. Quote:
And there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" that is a propaganda term like Edward Bernays' "Torches of Freedom." Same type of nonsense. Quote:
Quote:
Pope Gregory IX's inquisition was no different than Stalin's reign of terror in my opinion. Quote:
I don't welcome it. I don't view it as some grandiose thing, and I sure as hell don't want it. However, there is a point where many citizens will not tolerate what is viewed as infringement and/or degradation of their rights. As Bill Maher pointed out, ALL of the other amendments of the Bill of Rights (I'll add, including the 2nd amendment) except the 3rd, have been horribly undermined. And contrary to what Bill said, there are many of all poltical persuations that see it, and are sick of it as can be seen in the people's distrust of government being at an all time high. The problem has been, IMHO, that people trusted the media, the judges, and their politicians to do what was right rather than what certain big-money interests preferred. That has led to much of the mess we are in as a whole in this country.
__________________
|
||||||||||||||||||||
2013-01-19, 18:28 | Link #1236 | |
cho~ kakkoii
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 3rd Planet
|
Quote:
Cause and effect of use of a gun represent such finality that is hardly seen in modern human history. I, however, agree that banning guns in America isn't going to be a reality any time soon, probably not in our lifetime anyway. We will have to come out with other measures where we can allow responsible people to own guns, and at the same time find ways to keep those people away from deadly device who want to kill a lot of people for whatever reason. Lowering violence and death, gun-related or otherwise, is another can of worms. Btw, to make an unrelated point, the death caused by texting/drunk-driving will go down even lower in the near future when more and more states figure out the legislative measures to allow automated, self-driving vehicles. Two states are already allowing the use of automated cars. We may need to invent something similar to guns, perhaps like a Dominator from Psycho Pass?
__________________
|
|
2013-01-19, 18:32 | Link #1237 | |
Ass connoisseur
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Florida
Age: 37
|
Quote:
And that's simply not true. You have the fortification of your own house. If you catch him before he completely breaks in, you've already won. If you have a firearm and are not afraid to use it, that it.
__________________
|
|
2013-01-19, 18:34 | Link #1238 | |
On a mission
Author
|
Quote:
We're not talking about a force of rebels suiciding into the superior "loyalist force". If a widespread uprising were to occur, there would be riots everywhere, and that in itself would be hard to stop. If a single city riot can make the news, what can be said about many? Not to mention I believe the all volunteer military of the United States would be hesitant to slaughter its own fellow citizenry. Also, please fix your quotes so that it is clear who you're replying to.
__________________
|
|
2013-01-19, 18:35 | Link #1239 | |||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2013-01-19, 18:44 | Link #1240 | |
=^^=
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42° 10' N (Latitude) 87° 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 45
|
Hey gun people...
Quote:
Why so nervous?
__________________
|
|
|
|