Non-IT News Thread
-
@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.
-
@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).
