Non-IT News Thread
-
@scottalanmiller Which is why I'd rather not have my guns taken away. #1) I don't trust the government. #2) Three things I want if somebody breaks into my house... Faith, a weapon (anything that isn't bolted down), and 911 to hurry up and get there.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller Which is why I'd rather not have my guns taken away. #1) I don't trust the government. #2) Three things I want if somebody breaks into my house... Faith, a weapon (anything that isn't bolted down), and 911 to hurry up and get there.
So there is an obvious question here then....
If you maintain guns because you believe and/or heavily fear that your specific government is dangerous and scary then why not move to a country with a good track record and better safety where there is no need for a gun?
-
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
Just like I believe that the US should have an arsenal and military because other countries have arsenals of weapons and military.
The US and other sovereign states are peers. The public and armed criminals are not. These are not the same kinds of things. I agree that the US should maintain a military given its size. But that it should keep its weapons at home, not take them out "in public."
In that case, we shouldn't be going to another countries shores and waging war - we should be staying home and defending ourselves.
-
Chinese markets down 7.6% today. China cutting interest rates to slow the slide. World markets up on news.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
Just like I believe that the US should have an arsenal and military because other countries have arsenals of weapons and military.
The US and other sovereign states are peers. The public and armed criminals are not. These are not the same kinds of things. I agree that the US should maintain a military given its size. But that it should keep its weapons at home, not take them out "in public."
In that case, we shouldn't be going to another countries shores and waging war - we should be staying home and defending ourselves.
Could not agree more.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
For example, more people die in car accidents, why haven't we banned cars, or at least mandated other protections to save more lives.... I'll tell you why - because of money and because guns are sensational. When someone goes on a shooting spree, they can typically single handedly (missing from FF dictionary) kill 10+ people quickly - cars rarely do this.
Well we haven't banned guns at all, there is just about zero regulations around them. So no banning is happening anywhere at the moment. Cars have many mandated protections. They are used so heavily by so many people that there is little way to make them not a major killer. But we use them continuously and the safety rating is pretty amazing considering that.
Also, in nearly all cases, people that get killed by cars are in cars - meaning that they are essentially optional and only people who opt to use them are the ones in danger.
Yeah, not exactly..
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/02/23/national/crime-legal/driver-held-after-running-over-13-pedestrians-in-nagoya/#.VdyC-vZVhBcWhy? Because the person wanted to and it was the easiest weapon of mass destruction they had access to.
The problem is the person, not the tool in every case.
I agree that the base issues are all people. But we can't ban people or always detect which ones are going to do something horrible. But we can make weapons harder to get, harder to use and just saver overall.
I understand what you are saying here - by not having guns, the crazies don't have an 'easy' access to a mass destruction device, but as Jarad just pointed out, if you take away the guns.. the crazies will just find another weapon to use. Frankly, I'd be surprised if we didn't see IEDs become a much bigger thing for the crazies.
-
@Dashrender said:
I understand what you are saying here - by not having guns, the crazies don't have an 'easy' access to a mass destruction device, but as Jarad just pointed out, if you take away the guns.. the crazies will just find another weapon to use. Frankly, I'd be surprised if we didn't see IEDs become a much bigger thing for the crazies.
Yes, but as the results show, having lesser weapons makes things safer for everyone. Yes now they use knives instead of guns, but that makes the police more effective, makes crowds more effective (easier to overpower a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun) and statistically just works.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
So here is a question, obviously we already have gun rules that limit us from having grenades, rocket launchers, fully automatic rifles, tripod mounted canon and similar even more destructive items in public. But if the fear is that criminals will be weaponized and taking away guns will not be effective because the bad guys will always have whatever they want, why do we not allow these other things in public or are the people supporting guns wishing that these things were legal too and feel that they are needed for a higher degree of public self defense?
I don't personally subscribe to the personal self defense theory (OK maybe I do a little), but really I subscribe more to the not allowing the government to take total control and in that vain, the citizens should have access to the same weapons as the government. Now that doesn't mean that I think people should be walking around town with handgranades or SAWs.
-
@Dashrender said:
Frankly, I'd be surprised if we didn't see IEDs become a much bigger thing for the crazies.
Crazy people have been blowing themselves and others up long before we called them IEDs.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
So here is a question, obviously we already have gun rules that limit us from having grenades, rocket launchers, fully automatic rifles, tripod mounted canon and similar even more destructive items in public. But if the fear is that criminals will be weaponized and taking away guns will not be effective because the bad guys will always have whatever they want, why do we not allow these other things in public or are the people supporting guns wishing that these things were legal too and feel that they are needed for a higher degree of public self defense?
I said many posts ago that this problem was related to the extremist groups in the gun lobby blocking any intelligent gun control changes for decades.
There are many simply changes that can be done to make it more difficult for the random crazy to get a gun while barely impacting the lawful gun owner.
Such as?
-
@Dashrender Real, intelligent background checks.
training courses
storage rules
... to get us started
-
@Dashrender said:
I don't personally subscribe to the personal self defense theory (OK maybe I do a little), but really I subscribe more to the not allowing the government to take total control and in that vain, the citizens should have access to the same weapons as the government. Now that doesn't mean that I think people should be walking around town with handgranades or SAWs.
I can appreciate the logic but there are some issues with that theory.... like people could never afford them so they are inaccessible from financial reasons alone, this makes people so dangerous that the police and military can do nothing to protect you, those weapons take specialized training to use, etc.
I think that the fear of military takeover is problematic. Not that it could never happen, but it is very unlikely and causing real world problems in the hopes of avoiding it is a bad way to go.
When these laws were written, soldiers carried muskets and there was no police force. The world is a very different place. We don't hunt with muskets, people are not already armed otherwise and the military use weapons that the public could never afford or understand how to use. And muskets were not deadly to a crowd. A man with a musket could not kill lots of unarmed people, only likely one or two at most. And even the person he shot could often take him out before he had time to reload.
The world is a different place. The BoR was never intended to allow what it has allowed.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller Which is why I'd rather not have my guns taken away. #1) I don't trust the government. #2) Three things I want if somebody breaks into my house... Faith, a weapon (anything that isn't bolted down), and 911 to hurry up and get there.
So there is an obvious question here then....
If you maintain guns because you believe and/or heavily fear that your specific government is dangerous and scary then why not move to a country with a good track record and better safety where there is no need for a gun?
You make a valid point for #1, but that still leaves #2 which could happen anywhere in the world.
I like being close to family. I distrust our government, yes, but I think I would have that problem no matter where I go... politicians are always involved somewhere.... So I choose to stay close to family (and the familiar... there is always something to be said for the familiar, no matter how little, lol).
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
So, just to be clear with what you are saying: as you've not disputed the stats, you are saying that you'd rather than the public better able to defend itself against more violence and have more violent crime overall than to have a less defensible public with less violence so that the defense isn't needed?
Did you read the links that I posted earlier? (if you didn't, go back and check the gun rights one). Florida's homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below (stats are from 1994, FTA) after allowing concealed carry.
How does that stat in any way support having guns? You are using the assumption of guns as a justification for more guns. Florida is still very dangerous for gun violence when compared to places without guns. That concealed carry is better than no concealed carry when guns are already assumed has never been questioned.
Of course it is, and always will be.. the same can be said for places without knives or literally anything, so what, you want to ban the manufacture of all goods?
Will there be less deaths without guns, maybe, I'd even go so far as probably, but so what? I'm pretty callous and not as concerned for everyone else as it appears others are. Is it tragic when someone is killed by a strayed bullet, sure, but enough across the population to force this upon those who don't want this ruling? I think not.
-
@dafyre said:
You make a valid point for #1, but that still leaves #2 which could happen anywhere in the world.
Could happen, but is less likely to. Answer this question separately from everything else and see how you feel...
Would you rather:
- Attempt to defend your family from danger?
- Not have your family in danger at all?
Which is more important to you?
-
The last 50 or so posts are really blowing my mind (disregard pun)
I rarely feel this unable to see someone else's view and grok it.
-
I think we are seeing the driving / flying problem here. Most people are aware that flying is safer than being in a car. A lot safer. It's not even close. Flying in an airplane is incredibly safe (from death.)
But most people feel safer in a car because it gives the impression that they are in control because they are able to react to things. But this, as we know, is a false sense of security. Just because you can dodge a deer or might avoid an accident most things happen out of our control and even we ourselves are not as reliable as we think that we are.
But flying reduces the chances of the accidents completely and is just safer. Yes, if something bad happens you just hang on and crash (and die) but the chances of that happening are very, very low.
Often the feeling of control tricks our brains into doing something dangerous because of the false sense of security.
I think that is what guns are doing here. Having a gun at home doesn't make you safer but it does let you feel like you have more control. Having an armed populace does not stop the government from taking over, but it makes us feel like we could stop them.
-
@Dashrender said:
Will there be less deaths without guns, maybe, I'd even go so far as probably, but so what?
Um, isn't that enough? Better is better, right? Why would we ever choose "more deaths" when "fewer deaths" is an option?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
The world is a different place. The BoR was never intended to allow what it has allowed.
Yes, indeed, the world was a different place...but I think the Bill of Rights was written with the intent that citizens remain armed.
