|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 21 2013 09:35 KonekoTyriin wrote:
Just curious; why does the weapon you own for protection have to be capable of killing someone?
What level of protection does an assault rifle afford you that, for example, a taser does not?
It seems to me that a reasonable compromise is available here, wherein mass killings become much less frequent but no one who relies on a weapon for a feeling of safety needs to be denied that.
Range. multiple rounds. Intimidation.
Also, why do people keep mentioning assault rifles? None of these recent mass shootings used assault rifles. They are in the vast minority of gun crime. If we really wanted to debate this we should be discussing handguns (so basically, extreme gun control).
I don't know much about new studies, but for example the crime rate in America is falling (FBI), despite a larger number of guns and owners and the expiration of the AWB. These laws are just meaningless.
I don't think the NRA is perfect, obviously. But I would hardly label them "insane." Any particular reason (besides supporting gun rights) that makes them warrant this?
|
On January 21 2013 09:49 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 09:35 KonekoTyriin wrote:
Just curious; why does the weapon you own for protection have to be capable of killing someone?
What level of protection does an assault rifle afford you that, for example, a taser does not?
It seems to me that a reasonable compromise is available here, wherein mass killings become much less frequent but no one who relies on a weapon for a feeling of safety needs to be denied that. Range. multiple rounds. Intimidation. Also, why do people keep mentioning assault rifles? None of these recent mass shootings used assault rifles. They are in the vast minority of gun crime. If we really wanted to debate this we should be discussing handguns (so basically, extreme gun control). I don't know much about new studies, but for example the crime rate in America is falling (FBI), despite a larger number of guns and owners and the expiration of the AWB. These laws are just meaningless. I don't think the NRA is perfect, obviously. But I would hardly label them "insane." Any particular reason (besides supporting gun rights) that makes them warrant this?
The Aurora shooter used one of these (and a shotgun and a pistol) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_&_Wesson_M&P15
And what if someone put the time and money into researching and producing a type of taser that had range and multiple rounds. That would intimidate me, and possibly save lives.
|
On January 21 2013 09:55 ElvisWayCool wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 09:49 Introvert wrote:On January 21 2013 09:35 KonekoTyriin wrote:
Just curious; why does the weapon you own for protection have to be capable of killing someone?
What level of protection does an assault rifle afford you that, for example, a taser does not?
It seems to me that a reasonable compromise is available here, wherein mass killings become much less frequent but no one who relies on a weapon for a feeling of safety needs to be denied that. Range. multiple rounds. Intimidation. Also, why do people keep mentioning assault rifles? None of these recent mass shootings used assault rifles. They are in the vast minority of gun crime. If we really wanted to debate this we should be discussing handguns (so basically, extreme gun control). I don't know much about new studies, but for example the crime rate in America is falling (FBI), despite a larger number of guns and owners and the expiration of the AWB. These laws are just meaningless. I don't think the NRA is perfect, obviously. But I would hardly label them "insane." Any particular reason (besides supporting gun rights) that makes them warrant this? The Aurora shooter used one of these (and a shotgun and a pistol) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_&_Wesson_M&P15And what if someone put the time and money into researching and producing a type of taser that had range and multiple rounds. That would intimidate me, and possibly save lives.
Should have been more clear. He used a very limited version of an assault rifle. It's semi-auto. One pull, one round. Could have done the same damage with handguns (Virginia tech). point is, banning these rifles would not prevent these things from happening when such a thing as gun-free zones still exist.
Then someone can research that and people can buy it if they want. I tend to think a solid round more reliable than a taser pin, though. I would think 5 gunman vs 5 taserman would still be pretty one sided. But no such things exists in the first place.
|
On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!
Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.
Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ?
I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive.
Getting rid of guns does not prevent massacres. Any attempt to say otherwise is misinformed at best, malicious at worst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
7 dead, 10 injured, no gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
8 dead, 15 injured, no gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjarsari_massacre
21 dead, 12 injured, no gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antakin
15 dead, 3 injured, no gun.
|
On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!
Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.
Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ? I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive. Getting rid of guns does not prevent massacres. Any attempt to say otherwise is misinformed at best, malicious at worst. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre7 dead, 10 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre8 dead, 15 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjarsari_massacre21 dead, 12 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antakin15 dead, 3 injured, no gun.
Exactly, it's not like people who have 'moments of madness' think "I feel like killing someone, too bad I don't have a gun, guess I'll just go read a book or something"...
|
On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!
Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.
Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ? I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive. Getting rid of guns does not prevent massacres. Any attempt to say otherwise is misinformed at best, malicious at worst. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre7 dead, 10 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre8 dead, 15 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjarsari_massacre21 dead, 12 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antakin15 dead, 3 injured, no gun.
Anybody seriously attempting to prevent every act of violence and every murder by enacting any measure of gun control is an idiot.
At the same time, anybody who perceives these measures to reduce gun violence as an attempt to stop all massacres is also an idiot.
|
United States41973 Posts
On January 21 2013 10:24 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!
Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.
Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ? I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive. Getting rid of guns does not prevent massacres. Any attempt to say otherwise is misinformed at best, malicious at worst. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre7 dead, 10 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre8 dead, 15 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjarsari_massacre21 dead, 12 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antakin15 dead, 3 injured, no gun. Exactly, it's not like people who have 'moments of madness' think "I feel like killing someone, too bad I don't have a gun, guess I'll just go read a book or something"...
The process you just attempted to ridicule and dismiss as absurd is called "calming down" and it's pretty well documented.
|
On January 21 2013 10:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 10:24 kmillz wrote:On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!
Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.
Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ? I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive. Getting rid of guns does not prevent massacres. Any attempt to say otherwise is misinformed at best, malicious at worst. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre7 dead, 10 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre8 dead, 15 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjarsari_massacre21 dead, 12 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antakin15 dead, 3 injured, no gun. Exactly, it's not like people who have 'moments of madness' think "I feel like killing someone, too bad I don't have a gun, guess I'll just go read a book or something"... The process you just attempted to ridicule and dismiss as absurd is called "calming down" and it's pretty well documented.
Wait, do you honestly think anyone who commits these mass murders with guns or not was just in a momentous rage and had a possibility of "calming down" without the mental help they really needed?
|
On January 21 2013 10:55 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 10:42 KwarK wrote:On January 21 2013 10:24 kmillz wrote:On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!
Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.
Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ? I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive. Getting rid of guns does not prevent massacres. Any attempt to say otherwise is misinformed at best, malicious at worst. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre7 dead, 10 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre8 dead, 15 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjarsari_massacre21 dead, 12 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antakin15 dead, 3 injured, no gun. Exactly, it's not like people who have 'moments of madness' think "I feel like killing someone, too bad I don't have a gun, guess I'll just go read a book or something"... The process you just attempted to ridicule and dismiss as absurd is called "calming down" and it's pretty well documented. Wait, do you honestly think anyone who commits these mass murders with guns or not was just in a momentous rage and had a possibility of "calming down" without the mental help they really needed?
I'm kind of confused by his statement as well, the process is absurd and does deserve ridicule because it is nonsensical.
|
On January 21 2013 10:37 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!
Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.
Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ? I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive. Getting rid of guns does not prevent massacres. Any attempt to say otherwise is misinformed at best, malicious at worst. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre7 dead, 10 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre8 dead, 15 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjarsari_massacre21 dead, 12 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antakin15 dead, 3 injured, no gun. Anybody seriously attempting to prevent every act of violence and every murder by enacting any measure of gun control is an idiot. At the same time, anybody who perceives these measures to reduce gun violence as an attempt to stop all massacres is also an idiot.
What makes gun violence worse than regular violence? Guns are just the tools the criminals choose. Get rid of them, either they just get illegal guns, or they switch to some other weapon. Gun control is just treating symptoms, when you should be treating the disease. The disease is socioeconomic strife, and a nonsense War on Drugs. If you improve the economic conditions in the inner city, and if you loosen drug laws so fewer harmless stoners do hard time, you will see a drastic drop in ALL crime rates, not just gun crime.
|
The sad thing about guns is that it seems like the people who want to own them are the kind of people who shouldn't.
|
Didn't the statistics show that there were less murders in areas where guns were allowed?
I am against the right to own machine guns and automatic sub machine guns.
|
On January 21 2013 11:18 YumYumGranola wrote:
The sad thing about guns is that it seems like the people who want to own them are the kind of people who shouldn't.
Haha, and we can derive this from Plato by way of Mao!
I like this. Take the guns away from everyone who currently has one, and give one to everyone who currently doesn't, then see what happens.
|
On January 21 2013 11:27 KAB00000000M wrote:
Didn't the statistics show that there were less murders in areas where guns were allowed?
I am against the right to own machine guns and automatic sub machine guns.
People already don't have automatics. They're technically legal, Federally, but they're so expensive, and the red tape so thick practically no one has them.
On January 21 2013 11:18 YumYumGranola wrote:
The sad thing about guns is that it seems like the people who want to own them are the kind of people who shouldn't.
That's because you only hear about the ones who shouldn't own them. There's approximately 100,000,000 gun owners in the US. The ones who should not own guns are an extremely small minority. But the news doesn't report on the 99,000,000 who don't cause problems, do they?
|
On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!
Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.
Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ? I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive.
I found this part of your argument a bit surprising. On what basis can you claim that people who have enough resources to acquire something are therefore responsible enough to have it? I mean if you're talking in general, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want someone like North Korea's leader to have a nuke because he's somewhat unstable. Or any other rogue nation, for that matter. Syria's "leader" Bashar Al-Assad could potentially unleash chemical weapons on his own population; clearly he's not responsible.
If you're just talking about an American citizen, it still isn't clear why what you're saying is true. I just don't see the correlation between being powerful and being responsible.
I think maybe if you define the people specifically as "crazies" then maybe you're right. But there are lot of people who may be brainwashed or have very warped thinking, that will with determination find a way to pursue their extreme agenda.
|
On January 21 2013 11:52 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!
Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.
Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ? I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive. I found this part of your argument a bit surprising. On what basis can you claim that people who have enough resources to acquire something are therefore responsible enough to have it? I mean if you're talking in general, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want someone like North Korea's leader to have a nuke because he's somewhat unstable. Or any other rogue nation, for that matter. Syria's "leader" Bashar Al-Assad could potentially unleash chemical weapons on his own population; clearly he's not responsible. If you're just talking about an American citizen, it still isn't clear why what you're saying is true. I just don't see the correlation between being powerful and being responsible. I think maybe if you define the people specifically as "crazies" then maybe you're right. But there are lot of people who may be brainwashed or have very warped thinking, that will with determination find a way to pursue their extreme agenda.
Personally, I'd be ok with any nation having nukes. By this I mean I would not find it morally reprehensible. The US isn't some bastion of good will and justice when it comes to foreign affairs, so if we can have nukes despite our failings, why can't Iran or North Korea? I would prefer if they did not have them, but I don't believe I can say they should not be allowed to have them. But that's for another thread, or PM's.
As for civilians, in order to become that powerful, you had to be reasonable. Remember, nukes are so hard to get, entire countries have trouble doing it. This is not the kind of task an irresponsible person is capable of. Any psycho can drive a car through a crowd of people, or shoot up some public gathering, but it takes just such a huge amount of money and connections, that even sane civilians would have trouble succeeding.
In any case, regardless of my opinion on it, all this nuke talk is pretty blatantly just a strawman.
|
On January 21 2013 09:24 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 09:19 CapnAmerica wrote:On January 21 2013 09:06 Falling wrote:
Well speaking of stats vs emotions and keeping to the facts- I have a question.
I've seen a couple news pieces in CNN and CBS recently that the NRA has been actively hindering research from being conducted through the CDC amongst other things. Is there truth to this? Because it seems to me if it truly is about stats and facts, then the NRA shouldn't be worried about more research to the extent to which they try to block it. I can't speak to this directly, but it's generally accepted in the U.S. that the NRA is full of nuts. There are plenty of reasonable people who are members as well, but those in power are on par with the heads of the current conservative Republican party. Bad politics. Actually, the NRA has a higher favorability rating than Congress and the president (41%ish). I don't know where you get your news to think that is "generally accepted."
Most people that I know who are in favor of people owning firearms of any kind (this is anecdotal) feel that the NRA is a negative political organization outside of the fact that it happens to unite people who would like to own a gun. Bringing in stats for the President and Congress is a little silly to me, as I would never say that the current President or Congress are fanatical or totally inept. Except in jest.
Also, I was never polled on what I think about the NRA -- where and when a study like that is performed and who is included have a huge impact.
And, as an aside, 41% still means the majority is not in favor of it...
On January 21 2013 10:55 Dawski wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 21 2013 10:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 10:24 kmillz wrote:On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!
Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.
Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ? I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive. Getting rid of guns does not prevent massacres. Any attempt to say otherwise is misinformed at best, malicious at worst. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre7 dead, 10 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre8 dead, 15 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjarsari_massacre21 dead, 12 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antakin15 dead, 3 injured, no gun. Exactly, it's not like people who have 'moments of madness' think "I feel like killing someone, too bad I don't have a gun, guess I'll just go read a book or something"... The process you just attempted to ridicule and dismiss as absurd is called "calming down" and it's pretty well documented. Wait, do you honestly think anyone who commits these mass murders with guns or not was just in a momentous rage and had a possibility of "calming down" without the mental help they really needed?
I think the point that he's making is that it's much harder to stay irrationally angry for extended periods of time without the means to commit crimes easily. Guns don't commit crimes, but they make it way easier to inflict more damage in less time for less effort, and without as much of a visceral connection with your victims as, say, a knife.
Taking the guns out of the equation won't eliminate the fact that someone needs help, but it will temporarily reduce how much damage they can do. Like building missile turrets in your base against drops. Gun control is actually StarCraft risk management.
|
On January 21 2013 12:18 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 11:52 radscorpion9 wrote:On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!
Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.
Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ? I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive. I found this part of your argument a bit surprising. On what basis can you claim that people who have enough resources to acquire something are therefore responsible enough to have it? I mean if you're talking in general, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want someone like North Korea's leader to have a nuke because he's somewhat unstable. Or any other rogue nation, for that matter. Syria's "leader" Bashar Al-Assad could potentially unleash chemical weapons on his own population; clearly he's not responsible. If you're just talking about an American citizen, it still isn't clear why what you're saying is true. I just don't see the correlation between being powerful and being responsible. I think maybe if you define the people specifically as "crazies" then maybe you're right. But there are lot of people who may be brainwashed or have very warped thinking, that will with determination find a way to pursue their extreme agenda. Personally, I'd be ok with any nation having nukes. By this I mean I would not find it morally reprehensible. The US isn't some bastion of good will and justice when it comes to foreign affairs, so if we can have nukes despite our failings, why can't Iran or North Korea? I would prefer if they did not have them, but I don't believe I can say they should not be allowed to have them. But that's for another thread, or PM's. As for civilians, in order to become that powerful, you had to be reasonable. Remember, nukes are so hard to get, entire countries have trouble doing it. This is not the kind of task an irresponsible person is capable of. Any psycho can drive a car through a crowd of people, or shoot up some public gathering, but it takes just such a huge amount of money and connections, that even sane civilians would have trouble succeeding. In any case, regardless of my opinion on it, all this nuke talk is pretty blatantly just a strawman.
It's not a strawman.
It illustrates a valid point. "Arms" is a very generic term, which, given the extremely life-threatening capabilities of modern technology, has already been compromised on in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Thus, most of us can't own lots of various arms that the military uses, such as artillery. Or nukes.
What happens when "arms" takes a new turn as it did when semi-automatic guns were invented? Most of the handguns today would devastate the common weapons of the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries. Are we to take this generic "objects don't kill people" approach into the indefinite future? There are guns today that can bring down airplanes. These are generally exceptional, hard to get, and hopefully tracked by government agencies. But perhaps the handguns (if they're "guns" at all) of future generations will be just as capable of such devastation. Should everyone have one? Should they be common household items? Will that save lives?
Should the common sense of the time not override the ideology of the 17th century slave-owners? Guns in 1776, in Europe and America, were only just beginning to be commonplace. It was only just recently that armies began using them. They could have no idea where the technology would go. Guns were the best - and the only - weapon. Artillery, high-explosives, and the such did not occur to them.
In 1776, America was actually forbidding itself a standing army. All they had was militia. And they had slaves to control - not a slight problem in the least. So guns were it. They were the only weapon that mattered, and they were the defense of our nation.
I don't mean to lecture, but it's pretty obvious that the mentality of that early America is almost completely irrelevant. We have a standing army now, to say the least, which is something our ancestors considered sacrilege. We've compromised on the concept that everyone can own whatever weapon they want. They can't. You can't own any weapon you might wish for, such as nukes. There are limits, and perhaps we should create some more, as our technology continues to develop.
|
On January 21 2013 09:36 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On January 21 2013 09:06 Falling wrote:
Well speaking of stats vs emotions and keeping to the facts- I have a question.
I've seen a couple news pieces in CNN and CBS recently that the NRA has been actively hindering research from being conducted through the CDC amongst other things. Is there truth to this? Because it seems to me if it truly is about stats and facts, then the NRA shouldn't be worried about more research to the extent to which they try to block it. I don't know about that, (it wouldn't surprise me, the NRA is insane), but why would the CDC be looking into guns, exactly? I'd be a little nervous about why the Center for Disease Control was using tax dollars to look into something not (as far as I can tell) related to their domain, and where the ideas came from. I wouldn't really want the NRA to do a study on HIV either. Well I don't really know what jurisdiction your various organizations have. I think it was under the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control that the research was blocked. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html/?pagewanted=all&_r=0Show nested quote +The centers also ask researchers it finances to give it a heads-up anytime they are publishing studies that have anything to do with firearms. The agency, in turn, relays this information to the N.R.A. as a courtesy, said Thomas Skinner, a spokesman for the centers. Amongst other things. I mean I guess it could be the wrong organization doing the research. But it doesn't seem like any related organization has filled in the gap. It just got shut down in one area. And then I think it got shut down again with the National Institutes for Health. But it seems there is a great concern for shutting down government research then for relocating to the proper organization- if there is one. Dunno. I'll admit this isn't a topic I am very strong on- hence my asking whether this is true vs bias reproting.
Ok, well that sounds slightly less retarded. Even so, I'd need to know a LOT more about the situation to know whether it was just to prevent bias or what.
I don't trust a federally funded source to study anything highly politicized. In the Army, I spent some time at division HQ, and I know just how far reaching the politics can get. At the policy and decision making levels of anything federally funded, there's going to be bias if people want to keep their jobs.
It's actually kind of disgusting. Obviously, I wouldn't trust the NRA to study gun violence either. Ideally, we'd get a neutral third party to do it, but even then we'd probably see political bias from other countries having some effect.
As I've said lots of times, there's room for compromise in gun control, the problem is that compromise is pretty much always pushed to the wayside, and we end up with idiotic measures, or ineffective measures. As I've said, if we ban "assault weapons", well, I'd love to know how not having a bayonet mounted makes it harder to shoot people. In basic, we did bayonet training with "rubber duckies", hard, rubberized training rifles that cost a lot less to replace. Basically, we had a blunt, awkward spear. Couldn't shoot people with the bayonet, but we could mount one!
|
On January 21 2013 13:17 Leporello wrote:
We have a standing army now, to say the least, which is something our ancestors considered sacrilege.
Now THIS is the founder-mythos nostalgia I'd like to revive. Then we could dispense with this Keynesianism qui s'ignore which is the military-industrial complex (looking at you, Romney)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
