Non-IT News Thread
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@dafyre said:
It will stop criminals who want guns from getting them? And then I am left bringing fists to a gun fight? Remember how well that worked out for the police in France? Sure, I could run, but you gotta remember my mindset. If I see a weapon, I assume it is going to be used... That is just the way I was brought up.
Actually, it will, if all of the existing guns are removed. Japan has extrreme gun control laws. Guns are extremely rare there. Thus there are also fewer random criminals with guns. Does it stop organized crime from obtaining guns in Japan? No, it barely even slows them down.
But the random criminal is not going to have a gun.
Same all throughout Europe. Fear of guns pretty much doesn't exist (until you say you are an American and no, I'm not kidding.)
Don't think I am supporting your side of this though.
Guns are a tool and need to be treated as such.
The problems are generally all political, as with any other issue in the US.
The lobbies against intelligent changes to gun control laws are completely to blame.
The same goes for the lobbies against voter ID requirements
The same goes for the lobbies against immigration reform.Each of these things have tons of simple changes that the vast majority of the population support. But the extremist political groups that scream loud enough and put enough money into the pockets of politicians have blocked changes for decades.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Many, yes. That's the biggest advantage. Every person carrying a gun legally makes it easier for a criminal to do so too.
While I don't argue the second point... Let's take a look at Chicago from 2014 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/24/chicago-crime-rate-drops-as-concealed-carry-gun-pe/?page=all)
And here... (http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/)
I like the second link better because it gives links to the resources.
You are only looking at one portion of the scenario. Yes, IF we have guns allowed in public then you should allow them concealed. I totally agree and you'll see I said that many pages back.
It's guns allowed in public at all that I disagree with.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Actually, it will, if all of the existing guns are removed.
Now you're on the slippery slope of taking away 2nd Ammendment rights. Because once it starts there... where does it stop?
-
@dafyre said:
Now you're on the slippery slope of taking away 2nd Ammendment rights. Because once it starts there... where does it stop?
Why is that a slippery slope or in any way a bad thing? That would be a great thing. That's exactly what I want removed.
-
@dafyre said:
Now you're on the slippery slope of taking away 2nd Ammendment rights. Because once it starts there... where does it stop?
Once we can't have guns anymore.... it would stop there right? Where else is there for it to go?
-
@dafyre said:
Now you're on the slippery slope of taking away 2nd Ammendment rights. Because once it starts there... where does it stop?
No, you are reading into my statement. That statement was simply a clarification of what Scott was saying. Removal of guns from the general populace DOES in fact reduce the incidence of criminals with guns. I was not advocating for anything.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
Now you're on the slippery slope of taking away 2nd Ammendment rights. Because once it starts there... where does it stop?
Why is that a slippery slope or in any way a bad thing? That would be a great thing. That's exactly what I want removed.
So now that they've gone and taken away the 2nd Ammendment. What's stop them from taking the first... or fourth? "You let us take away your right to bear arms. Now we are going to censor you."
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
How is it out of context? For the person who has a conceled carry permit, why should they not carry their weapon with them?
Because it puts everyone at risk. It lowers the safety of people in public.
It does? How?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
Now you're on the slippery slope of taking away 2nd Ammendment rights. Because once it starts there... where does it stop?
Once we can't have guns anymore.... it would stop there right? Where else is there for it to go?
Oh, don't be a simpleton. Those types of changes are never self contained to only one issue. If things in the US change enough that enough of the populace would support this type of constitutional amendment, how many other thing would be taken away by a government wielding this type of fear over the populace prior to this change?
I live firmly rooted in reality not some Utopian dream world.
-
@dafyre said:
So now that they've gone and taken away the 2nd Amendment. What's stop them from taking the first... or fourth? "You let us take away your right to bear arms. Now we are going to censor you."
That's not really a slope. If they wanted to take away amendments (which are just amendments, remember we didn't start with them) then they will. No need to have one go first.
And of course we want them to take away the first. Who supports the first amendment, it's totally evil. If taking away the second amendment let us start re-evaluating the bill of rights wouldn't that be awesome?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I agree - in the sense that carrying or brandishing a weapon incites fear and constitutes use. But how does that make it sensible to carry a gun yourself? That someone who does pull a weapon on you might plan to shoot you (actually still rather unlikely, normally they want you to back away) doesn't change the overall point that it is by having so many guns available that they are more likely to have one and more likely to use it on you.
Let's replace gun with knife. So now we should take away all knives? They can be a weapon... forks? sporks? spoons(I'm just being an idiot here, but it is for effect... You ever been cut by a spoon) ?
-
@dafyre said:
Let's replace gun with knife. So now we should take away all knives?
Japan did, and now slashing attacks there inspire the same type of horror as typical gun attacks in the US. A typical attack not being a mass shooting, but your average random murder.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
And of course we want them to take away the first. Who supports the first amendment, it's totally evil. If taking away the second amendment let us start re-evaluating the bill of rights wouldn't that be awesome?
As I said... Slippery slope.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
How is it out of context? For the person who has a conceled carry permit, why should they not carry their weapon with them?
Because it puts everyone at risk. It lowers the safety of people in public.
It does? How?
In the ways that we keep discussing. When guns are easy to get, there are more of them. When everyone has guns no one (people, police, etc.) can easily identify someone who should not have one. Countries that don't allow guns have less gun violence. That might sound obvious but it's what you guys appear to be arguing against - that disallowing guns somehow increases gun violence. Which I admit, there are logic points that I used to think made sense that suggest that this could be the case. But statistically it has been shown very strongly that countries restricting guns also reduce gun violence and the the American idea that having lots of guns reduces gun risk doesn't work.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
That people carry guns increases the chance that this situation will arise. I want to stop the situation from coming up rather than equipping a small percentage of the population to have a violent confrontation when it does arise.
It will stop criminals who want guns from getting them?
Many, yes. That's the biggest advantage. Every person carrying a gun legally makes it easier for a criminal to do so too.
How do you figure?
-
@dafyre said:
Let's replace gun with knife. So now we should take away all knives? They can be a weapon... forks? sporks? spoons(I'm just being an idiot here, but it is for effect... You ever been cut by a spoon) ?
Outside of very small or very dull (dinner) knives, why would we want people in public with knives either? Why do we desire a weaponized public?
If we lived in a war zone, I would totally understand. But we aren't in Syria or Nigeria.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
If we lived in a war zone, I would totally understand. But we aren't in Syria or Nigeria.
Been in South Chicago lately?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
That people carry guns increases the chance that this situation will arise. I want to stop the situation from coming up rather than equipping a small percentage of the population to have a violent confrontation when it does arise.
It will stop criminals who want guns from getting them?
Many, yes. That's the biggest advantage. Every person carrying a gun legally makes it easier for a criminal to do so too.
How do you figure?
So right now if I'm in public and I see someone with a gun - hidden, brandishing, waiving about, looking like a terrorist, etc. - I have no right to complain and no reason to raise alarm. I literally have no way to tell who should and should not have a weapon.
When no one is allowed to have a gun (police not included) it is relatively easy to know when a criminal is there with a gun, because any gun is one to be reported and be concerned about.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
In the ways that we keep discussing. When guns are easy to get, there are more of them. When everyone has guns no one (people, police, etc.) can easily identify someone who should not have one. Countries that don't allow guns have less gun violence.
See my post about slashing attacks in Japan. The fear is still there. just the weapon changed. The gun or knife is not the issue, it is only the method. The issue is people not tools.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
Now you're on the slippery slope of taking away 2nd Ammendment rights. Because once it starts there... where does it stop?
Once we can't have guns anymore.... it would stop there right? Where else is there for it to go?
Oh, don't be a simpleton. Those types of changes are never self contained to only one issue. If things in the US change enough that enough of the populace would support this type of constitutional amendment, how many other thing would be taken away by a government wielding this type of fear over the populace prior to this change?
I live firmly rooted in reality not some Utopian dream world.
Hell the NSA has already taken away our right to privacy by spying on us. I think that most of us would believe it to be illegal, but crazy things like the Patriot Act allow this nonsense.
I suppose what Scott is saying those who want and feel the need to carry guns is the same as the NSAs need to gather all of your information in case you go rouge.
