EPTSuddenly every case of road rage or street fight is way more likely to become a shooting.
If that makes you feel saver, your a strange person.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2598
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10813 Posts
Suddenly every case of road rage or street fight is way more likely to become a shooting. If that makes you feel saver, your a strange person. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On December 03 2015 17:37 Slaughter wrote: Maybe you should actually read the post I mentioned. Instead of being condescending, try to actually argue like a proper person and make points. I know this is the US politics thread where its just a shit show of mud slinging but you are going straight to being a rude asshole in your posts. Instead you are literally just talking past me addressing things I never said. Um, your post from a page ago is literally about "how to reduce the number of guns in the United States by putting as many roadblocks to gun ownership as humanly possible." The last paragraph literally asks people to brainstorm ways to make guns effectively inaccessible to people who aren't target shooters or hunters, then phase out guns over time via cultural shift. I do realize that I assumed you believe that police should still have access to guns in the future you want to head to, but I think that's a safe assumption. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On December 03 2015 17:53 Slaughter wrote: How is less illegal guns and people wanting to own legal guns less while addressing mental health of people a bad thing? "Wanting to own less guns" is a very...strange...way to put your proposal to implement a ton of roadblocks to gun ownership to change gun culture. After all, women in Texas simply "want" to have less abortions in much the same way. Poor people in Alabama feel the same way about voting, too. I feel that, for some reason, you would be ok with the former option but not the latter two. Increased mental health is fine, depending on how it's done. But that's a completely independent proposal that deals with a tiny subset of homicides (mass killings). If we're still talking "in general", you're talking about poor people and criminals. Finally, neither proposal addresses the fact that, "in general", the police simply cannot arrive fast enough to stop a crime in progress. This is utterly ignored. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On December 03 2015 18:08 Slaughter wrote: You can limit the amount of damage a person committing a crime in progress can afflict though before they get there. You can also prevent them via catching someone earlier in the process while they are trying to acquire their arms, legal or otherwise. My point exactly; the police can do absolutely nothing once a crime is in progress. They have to pray that the criminal is incompetent before the event and during the event. This is merely difficult for rare events like coordinated terrorism. This is almost impossible for "in general" crimes like armed robbery gone wrong. So why not also subsidize background checks, screening, and training for poor people who cannot afford them otherwise? It's quite independent of before/during event preparation for the criminal, and it's better than praying that the criminal is stupid or merciful. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On December 03 2015 18:45 Slaughter wrote: Are you really arguing that everyone, or most, people should be armed? Or do you just want poor people to have guns to make the (probably inevitable) glorious proletariat revolution more successful? Throwing more guns at the problem is far from a solution. Is the US supposed to become like the glorified media version of the old west? I mean I know people liked their spaghetti westerns but come on. Are you arguing that people should be helpless and simply pray that criminals slip up? The irony is that you believe the same thing I do; good guys need to be armed and bad guys need to be disarmed. You simply believe that the good guys should show up fashionably late. The vast majority of crime happens to poor people. The poor also tend to have the slowest police response time. Heaping a ton a roadblocks onto gun ownership favors gun ownership for the people who face crime the least; the rich and well-connected. Subsidizing background checks, screening, and application fees simply makes sense; for someone who cares so much about homicide "in general", you seem awfully keen to keep people who actually experience it defenseless. The average permit holder in Texas is half as likely to commit crime as the average Texas police officer. There's no complete data set for other states that I'm aware of; however, California's permit requirements are even more stringent than those of Texas. If you trust the police with guns, why do you not trust permit holders? | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 03 2015 19:06 acker wrote: They don't trust police with guns in this thread, if minorities are involved. They trust people will overlook their policies keeping those most at risk perpetually least able to provide for their own protection in self defense. In this millenium, every killer-victim matching is another argument for gun control, so why reduce the victim side of the equation if focusing on the murder device of the killer side of the equation reaps the preferred policy initiatives?Are you arguing that people should be helpless and simply pray that criminals slip up? The irony is that you believe the same thing I do; good guys need to be armed and bad guys need to be disarmed. You simply believe that the good guys should show up fashionably late. The vast majority of crime happens to poor people. The poor also tend to have the slowest police response time. Heaping a ton a roadblocks onto gun ownership favors gun ownership for the people who face crime the least; the rich and well-connected. Subsidizing background checks, screening, and application fees simply makes sense; for someone who cares so much about homicide "in general", you seem awfully keen to keep people who actually experience it defenseless. The average permit holder in Texas is half as likely to commit crime as the average Texas police officer. There's no complete data set for other states that I'm aware of; however, California's permit requirements are even more stringent than those of Texas. If you trust the police with guns, why do you not trust permit holders? | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
This argument is just like the one for National security except you substitute shitty ideas in the name of protecting the country for shitty ones for personal protection. Have the people of the US grown so afraid that they will distrust, alienate, and reject refugees and immigrants while also arming themselves because their fellow american might pose a threat? Trust no one but yourself and your 9mm. I get your reasoning --; I get your argument of having everyone be on the same playing field when it comes to their own defense against possible threats.....but why is "everyone has guns" better than "no one has guns"? | ||
|
Doraemon
Australia14949 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21973 Posts
On December 03 2015 20:18 Doraemon wrote: i can't believe people here actually believe arming people and making weapons more accessible is a solution Which is why America will not solve this problem for decades to come. Every time this debate happens I am again reminded of that Onion article. ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
(Number of crimes that would escalate in harm because guns are more available) - (Number of crimes that will result in more harm because guns are not available). Or (increased amount of harm from gun control level) - (decreased amount of harm from gun control level). Anyone that looks at only one of these two quantities when trying to evaluate gun control policies is being a bit shortsighted, I think, and will never come to consensus with people that are only looking at the other quantity. As gun control moves towards either extreme the quantities on either side drop to zero, but it's hard to believe the optimal balance is at the extremes. Edit: Another longer form of the equation is (Rate of gun violence in crimes with guns available - rate of gun violence in crimes with guns less available) - (rate of guns used to stop crimes with guns available - rate of guns used to stop crimes with guns less available), where "less available" is modified by your policy changes or gun control and "available" is the status quo. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
On December 03 2015 19:06 acker wrote: Are you arguing that people should be helpless and simply pray that criminals slip up? The irony is that you believe the same thing I do; good guys need to be armed and bad guys need to be disarmed. You simply believe that the good guys should show up fashionably late. The vast majority of crime happens to poor people. The poor also tend to have the slowest police response time. Heaping a ton a roadblocks onto gun ownership favors gun ownership for the people who face crime the least; the rich and well-connected. Subsidizing background checks, screening, and application fees simply makes sense; for someone who cares so much about homicide "in general", you seem awfully keen to keep people who actually experience it defenseless. The average permit holder in Texas is half as likely to commit crime as the average Texas police officer. There's no complete data set for other states that I'm aware of; however, California's permit requirements are even more stringent than those of Texas. If you trust the police with guns, why do you not trust permit holders? The problem with this argument, that gun control is bad because it would make it more difficult for normal citizens to get a gun while criminals would still be able to get them,is that many normal citizens do not plan on getting a gun anyway! Making guns legal wont effect them and make them buy a gun while it will make it easier for the criminal to get a gun. | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/san-bernardino-shooters-used-four-guns-explosive-device-atf-n473286 | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On December 03 2015 23:59 Rassy wrote: The problem with this argument, that gun control is bad because it would make it more difficult for normal citizens to get a gun while criminals would still be able to get them,is that many normal citizens do not plan on getting a gun anyway! Making guns legal wont effect them and make them buy a gun while it will make it easier for the criminal to get a gun. And this is the core of the problem, that there are large sections of the US population that don’t want to own a fire arm. So the argument that “more guns means more safety” doesn’t pan out unless everyone wants to own a fire arm and is trained. And making it more difficult to purchase a gun isn’t going to increase the rate of people being injured by criminal with guns. Because criminals will just buy the guns legally and then use them, as we have seen over and over. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/15/the-demographics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/ | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On December 03 2015 23:59 Rassy wrote: The problem with this argument, that gun control is bad because it would make it more difficult for normal citizens to get a gun while criminals would still be able to get them,is that many normal citizens do not plan on getting a gun anyway! Making guns legal wont effect them and make them buy a gun while it will make it easier for the criminal to get a gun. I also get the feeling that a lot of people who fight against gun control seem to assume they will no longer be able to get a gun. Like these background checks will yield results that most people can't get guns. It doesn't seem like many people argue against the trouble associated with background checks, but rather, it is about losing the right to have a gun. I feel like people in favor of gun control should be more vocal about how few people would be prevented from buying a gun. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
Anyway, is there any evidence that making guns more readily accessible reduces violence? You'd think gun rights supporters wouldn't spend so much time and money lobbying the government to prevent research into this issue if they expected that the data would show that having more guns would cause less violence... | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On December 03 2015 18:16 acker wrote: My point exactly; the police can do absolutely nothing once a crime is in progress. They have to pray that the criminal is incompetent before the event and during the event. This is merely difficult for rare events like coordinated terrorism. This is almost impossible for "in general" crimes like armed robbery gone wrong. So why not also subsidize background checks, screening, and training for poor people who cannot afford them otherwise? It's quite independent of before/during event preparation for the criminal, and it's better than praying that the criminal is stupid or merciful. except that it's exactly the other way around o.O Like you said, it's fairly difficult to prevent someone who wants to kill a lot of people from doing so because after all that's what he wants to do (duh). The "general" crimes like the robbery gone wrong are a lot easier to prevent from escalating. In that case the person is only interested in two things: 1) money (or similar) 2) getting out without getting caught. A murder is the last thing the person wants even if he's armed because his chances to get out without getting caught are almost 0 at that point. At the very least they're way worse than his chances of getting out of it when we're only talking about theft here. So murder is not what the person went out to do in the first place. It's even going so far as hurting him directly so it's highly unlogical for someone who wants your money to kill you. Despite that it happens. That is not because they want to murder you but because they made the snapdecision upon reflexes without thinking because they thought they HAVE to kill you at that point in time (panic, fear for own life, whatever). If neither of the two people involved are armed there's at least no immediate reason to fear for your life. At the very least less. That prevents those snapdecisions. Even if you give both people a knife that's still more reactiontime than what you get if both have a gun pointed at each other assuming the "robber" didn't wake you up by sitting on top of you while you're still in your bed, sleeping. If you have more reactiontime that means the chance that logic gets through rather than an reaction upon reflexes increases which again means you won't get killed. In the same sense it prevents suicides and murders between people that know each other. Both usually happen due to emotional situations. If they don't have easy means to hurt themselves/others in those moments that's already a win right there. | ||
| ||
