Non-IT News Thread
-
@dafyre said:
That is possible. But thinking in the "unlikely" scenario where a criminal gets a gun and forces his way into my house, past my dog and is just looking for people to kill? No, my right to have a gun does not increase my risk -- especially with gun laws as they are now. My desire to not have a gun would increase my risk in the event that someone has broken into my house.
Yes, your right to have the gun very much does because it makes it more likely that the criminal gets a gun and does those things.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
Hunting in public (as is firing off your weapon in public) is and should be illegal. Too many things to go wrong.... and what could you hunt in public places? Deer and Bears usually avoid bigger cities.
Public and big cities are not synonymous. Hunting in public is very common and totally legal in NY (except where otherwise stated, of course.) You are also allowed to hunt without warning on private property. When I was shot at it was from my own property. Lots of deer and bear too, actually.
(Lots of deer, few bear but they would come almost to the house.)
It's different down here. There are a few places of public land where you can hunt, but it is nowhere near people's houses. It is out in the woods, where you are more likely (at least down here) to encounter deer and such. And you cannot hunt on private property (as long as the lines are clearly marked).
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
Hunting in public (as is firing off your weapon in public) is and should be illegal. Too many things to go wrong.... and what could you hunt in public places? Deer and Bears usually avoid bigger cities.
Public and big cities are not synonymous. Hunting in public is very common and totally legal in NY (except where otherwise stated, of course.) You are also allowed to hunt without warning on private property. When I was shot at it was from my own property. Lots of deer and bear too, actually.
(Lots of deer, few bear but they would come almost to the house.)
It's different down here. There are a few places of public land where you can hunt, but it is nowhere near people's houses. It is out in the woods, where you are more likely (at least down here) to encounter deer and such. And you cannot hunt on private property (as long as the lines are clearly marked).
It is the same in upstate NY. There are vast areas where you can hunt on public land. I have no problem with hunting for food... but sport hunting (probably 98% of people around here) is kind of disgusting. Granted it does help with population control of deer and other animals that would probably starve to death otherwise. I do know several families that must hunt in order to survive as they don't make enough with two working adults to take care of their children... but that is another issue entirely.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
That is possible. But thinking in the "unlikely" scenario where a criminal gets a gun and forces his way into my house, past my dog and is just looking for people to kill? No, my right to have a gun does not increase my risk -- especially with gun laws as they are now. My desire to not have a gun would increase my risk in the event that someone has broken into my house.
Yes, your right to have the gun very much does because it makes it more likely that the criminal gets a gun and does those things.
By me not having a gun increases my chance of serious injury while trying to protect my family. If I do have a gun, then hopefully the problem is resolved quickly and painlessly. I would expect the robber would flee after coming face to face with a shotgun... but you never know.
That is my problem. All of the unknowns in disarming the general public. That's what Hitler did, and look at what happened. I don't trust our current government enough, and that is my problem. If times were different... We'll see.
I swear I thought this was in the What are you doing thread, lol.... I think I just need to go back to sleep.
-
@coliver said:
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
Hunting in public (as is firing off your weapon in public) is and should be illegal. Too many things to go wrong.... and what could you hunt in public places? Deer and Bears usually avoid bigger cities.
Public and big cities are not synonymous. Hunting in public is very common and totally legal in NY (except where otherwise stated, of course.) You are also allowed to hunt without warning on private property. When I was shot at it was from my own property. Lots of deer and bear too, actually.
(Lots of deer, few bear but they would come almost to the house.)
It's different down here. There are a few places of public land where you can hunt, but it is nowhere near people's houses. It is out in the woods, where you are more likely (at least down here) to encounter deer and such. And you cannot hunt on private property (as long as the lines are clearly marked).
It is the same in upstate NY. There are vast areas where you can hunt on public land. I have no problem with hunting for food... but sport hunting (probably 98% of people around here) is kind of disgusting. Granted it does help with population control of deer and other animals that would probably starve to death otherwise. I do know several families that must hunt in order to survive as they don't make enough with two working adults to take care of their children... but that is another issue entirely.
I'm more or less in support of that kind of hunting although feel we should fix that in other ways (I'm a big proponent of free food for everyone.) But if really hunting for food...
-
@dafyre said:
By me not having a gun increases my chance of serious injury while trying to protect my family. If I do have a gun, then hopefully the problem is resolved quickly and painlessly. I would expect the robber would flee after coming face to face with a shotgun... but you never know.
Yes, but only because everyone is allowed to have guns. You having a gun might help to protect you, you having the ability to have that gun puts them at risk.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
By me not having a gun increases my chance of serious injury while trying to protect my family. If I do have a gun, then hopefully the problem is resolved quickly and painlessly. I would expect the robber would flee after coming face to face with a shotgun... but you never know.
Yes, but only because everyone is allowed to have guns. You having a gun might help to protect you, you having the ability to have that gun puts them at risk.
However, in the same retrospect it puts the criminal at that very same risk if he enters the house of a family that is armed.
-
@dafyre said:
That is my problem. All of the unknowns in disarming the general public. That's what Hitler did, and look at what happened.
When did Hitler do this? I've never heard of this nor know any reason why it would have caused an issue (what result do you want me to feel resulted from this, if it happened?)
Germany is NOW gun free and super safe as is most of Europe. And as is Japan. I'm not sure what correlation you are thinking exists but it would need more explanation. Wasn't Germany disarmed after the war, not before? After Hitler was dead?
-
Assuming Hitler is dead and not living in Chile in that little German town.
-
@dafyre said:
However, in the same retrospect it puts the criminal at that very same risk if he enters the house of a family that is armed.
Of course, but like I keep saying, that stats say that that deterrent does not offset the overall additional danger to your family. The ability to have guns puts innocent people at higher risk, that's all. How it does it doesn't matter as much as the results - safer kids.
-
In 1938 Hitler's Nazi government passed the German Gun Control Act which loosened gun control, not tightened it. Remember that the Nazi's were (and are today) one of the extreme pro-gun groups both in Germany and in the US.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
In 1938 Hitler's Nazi government passed the German Gun Control Act which loosened gun control, not tightened it. Remember that the Nazi's were (and are today) one of the extreme pro-gun groups both in Germany and in the US.
Unless you were a Jew. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany#Gun_regulation_of_the_Third_Reich, See Disarming the Jews)
But my problem is here in the US things are so backwards and messed up that doing "more" or "better" gun control will make it harder for citizens to get guns for hunting or home defense against criminals, while doing nothing to stop the black market on guns.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
In 1938 Hitler's Nazi government passed the German Gun Control Act which loosened gun control, not tightened it. Remember that the Nazi's were (and are today) one of the extreme pro-gun groups both in Germany and in the US.
Unless you were a Jew. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany#Gun_regulation_of_the_Third_Reich, See Disarming the Jews)
But my problem is here in the US things are so backwards and messed up that doing "more" or "better" gun control will make it harder for citizens to get guns for hunting or home defense against criminals, while doing nothing to stop the black market on guns.
Yes, no question the Jews were not treated well in Nazi Germany.
-
@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.
