Non-IT News Thread
-
@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.
-
@Dashrender said:
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.
That's a bit harsh but, okay. But if you don't care about innocent lives or your own safety, what makes you want guns? If the argument is that other people don't matter, you don't care about forcing this ruling on them either, right?
-
@dafyre said:
Yes, indeed, the world was a different place...but I think the Bill of Rights was written with the intent that citizens remain armed.
Yes, but not armed as they are. And I'm giving the Bill of Rights the benefit of the doubt. The first amendment was a concession to the states that wanted the power to enforce religion. It was a horrible thing to add to the BoR but states demanded that power. The Fed gave it up and left us without the guarantees of religious freedom. It's not an ideal document, it was the best that they could produce at the time give the political pressures and lobbies and fractured states worried that one region or another would take over the others.
It's not applicable in today's landscape for many reasons. But I do not believe that there is any reason to believe that "armed" as is interpreted today was in any way an intent.
-
@MattSpeller said:
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.
LOL, but which one(s) can you and can't you see?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Would you rather:
- Attempt to defend your family from danger?
- Not have your family in danger at all?
Which is more important to you?
That's no choice. Everybody would want their family in no danger at all. But that is also unrealistic. Sure, there are places with more and less (and much more and much less) danger levels (and varying kinds of danger), but there is no such thing as no danger at all.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
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.
LOL, but which one(s) can you and can't you see?
E) None of them, and All of the above? lol.
-
@scottalanmiller I do not at all understand the desire to carry a gun. Let alone the gov conspiracy garbage. It just seems so far and away from what life is actually like and about that I have a giant disconnect.
If you can carry a gun, ANY MORON CAN.
The police are bad enough at this and they receive training. From experts no less. Given my druthers they'd go unarmed too, maybe keep a rifle in the trunk of the car. I look forward to the day when our police system works more like the British one in regards to carrying arms.
-
@dafyre said:
That's no choice. Everybody would want their family in no danger at all. But that is also unrealistic. Sure, there are places with more and less (and much more and much less) danger levels (and varying kinds of danger), but there is no such thing as no danger at all.
Sure. But that leads to the next question...
Would you rather:
- Have your family be in more danger but feel more in control?
- Have your family be in less danger but feel helpless?
Which matters more, the feeling of control or the safety of the family? Most people will choose the feeling of control when presented with it without the clear statement of risk.
-
@MattSpeller said:
The police are bad enough at this and they receive training. From experts no less. Given my druthers they'd go unarmed too, maybe keep a rifle in the trunk of the car.
I generally agree with this, but I think it depends. I'm cool with the swat level heavily armed police checking me a few times a day here in Panama - because we are in the middle of an area (between Columbia, Venezuela, Honduras and Guatemala with pretty much unlimited open borders) that is very dangerous and they need to know who is out and about and without guns bad things could happen too easily. But when in Europe where the borders are tight and there is a huge inland area, I appreciate them being without guns and everyone being safer for it. I think there is a balance for police with guns. That the UK can do so well without them while being an island is amazing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
That's no choice. Everybody would want their family in no danger at all. But that is also unrealistic. Sure, there are places with more and less (and much more and much less) danger levels (and varying kinds of danger), but there is no such thing as no danger at all.
Sure. But that leads to the next question...
Would you rather:
- Have your family be in more danger but feel more in control?
- Have your family be in less danger but feel helpless?
Which matters more, the feeling of control or the safety of the family? Most people will choose the feeling of control when presented with it without the clear statement of risk.
Unless there are extrime differences in the statement of risk, you are right. All things being equal, I would choose more control every time. Being hopeless is not a good place to be. I've seen entirely too many people destroyed by that feeling.
-
@dafyre said:
Unless there are extrime differences in the statement of risk, you are right. All things being equal, I would choose more control every time. Being hopeless is not a good place to be. I've seen entirely too many people destroyed by that feeling.
See that is where we are completely different. I would never willingly put the lives of my kids at risk for any level of feeling more in control. Even if the difference was tiny. Whatever it takes to keep them safe.
Now, in the moment, of course irrationality takes over. But having time to think clearly about how to keep them safe, I choose safety over a false sense of security.
-
@dafyre said:
All things being equal, I would choose more control every time.
All things being equal other than it puts your family at risk, you understand. ALL sense of control here comes at the risk to your family.
All things being equal, I would take my family's safety as the first thing. Nothing else comes close in importance.
-
@dafyre said:
I've seen entirely too many people destroyed by that feeling.
I'd take that mental anguish that I had lost control over the actual loss of the family any day.
-
I totally appreciate the desire to be in control, its an overwhelming feeling. Loss of control makes people go into a full panic, it's a terrible feeling. The amygdala takes over and we become drones.
-
