|
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 May 08 2013 08:14 Rhino85 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 07:20 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 08 2013 07:10 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 06:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Millitron, would you be opposed to working on the two problems in parallel?
1) Reduce overall crime by attacking the causes of crime. <--- This one is very broad and as a result very difficult to tackle, but there it is anyway.
2) Reduce overall numbers for firearm accidental injury, death, assault, homicide, and suicide. <--- This one is pretty broad, but could be readily addressed in accordance with a standard public health approach.
Is there a good reason for these two efforts being mutually exclusive? Perhaps I'm not following you correctly, but it seems that you are against addressing guns because you are in favor of addressing crime. I think it might be reasonable to be in favor of both, personally. It depends on how you do #2. I'm not really convinced that "Public Health" is a thing, but I can accept that reducing deaths is a good thing. The issue I have is that gun-rights are also good, and at least in my opinion outweigh the lives lost, especially considering that gun-violence has been on a pretty steep downward trend in the last decade. Assuming "public health issues" are plagues like AIDS or the lack of quality control in meatpacking plants in the early 1900's, this makes gun-violence not much of an issue, considering its already going down naturally. Why try to fix a problem that's already solving itself? This has been going on for a few pages now but you guys keep talking about the "benefits" of having gun rights. I can see the moral imperative in having them and I can see the benefits of having individual liberties and freedoms, but what kind of "benefits" are you referring to when you say that it outweighs the one million or so deaths that have occurred in the past decade? Just curious. At least be fair in your comparisons. Where did you come up with one million? The numbers I found were closer to 325,000. A third of the number you threw out there. Source.
My bad. I don't remember where I remembered the statistic (I just rattled off the first number I remembered, so I was hoping someone would correct if I was wrong, so thanks), but yeah I'm probably wrong.
Point still stands.
|
On May 08 2013 08:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 08:03 Oaky wrote:
The truth is in the pudding homes.
Australia got rid of guns, and they haven't had a SINGLE gun massacre since 96' Read the last few pages. Only NRA evidence is real evidence. Scientists, Doctors, and Non-American countries don't count as valid sources of information according to pro-gun people on this thread.
Here's your most recent gun study.
Pew Research.
Dated today.
Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
|
On May 08 2013 08:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 08:03 Oaky wrote:
The truth is in the pudding homes.
Australia got rid of guns, and they haven't had a SINGLE gun massacre since 96' Read the last few pages. Only NRA evidence is real evidence. Scientists, Doctors, and Non-American countries don't count as valid sources of information according to pro-gun people on this thread.
Strawman more.
Evidence that doesn't fail basic statistics or fail to consider overall violent crime rates instead of simply gun violence rates is not evidence. Evidence done by public health researchers instead of criminologists is not real evidence.
That still leaves plenty of evidence, none of which concludes that banning guns makes any significant difference in overall violent crime rates. The only thing banning guns does is causing violent crimes to be carried out with different weapons.
|
People shooting people with guns is a behavior problem.
Using the health system to deal with behavior problems, well. The biggest example would be treatment of drug and alcohol addiction.
It has had decidedly mixed results in preventing relapses. As has stopping the supply side of drugs, and making prescription drugs that cannot be altered into a snortable or injectable form, analogous to putting all these new features on guns to make them harder to use. People will find ways around these safeguards. They always do.
|
The only legitimate comparison to the US would as far as I know be Western Europe. Every country here has complete gun ban for their citizens and a monopoly of violence resting with the collective state. Ie the mob doesn't rule - law does. The risk of an invasion or a civil war is prohibited by well functioning democracies and international cooperation. Guns don't and won't bring anything good to the table. I would like to see "gun people" make a similar argument to why it would be a good idea for European nations to open up for public gun ownership as their argument to preserve their own laws.
|
On May 08 2013 15:26 Euronyme wrote:
The only legitimate comparison to the US would as far as I know be Western Europe. Every country here has complete gun ban for their citizens and a monopoly of violence resting with the collective state. Ie the mob doesn't rule - law does. The risk of an invasion or a civil war is prohibited by well functioning democracies and international cooperation. Guns don't and won't bring anything good to the table. I would like to see "gun people" make a similar argument to why it would be a good idea for European nations to open up for public gun ownership as their argument to preserve their own laws.
Because there is no evidence suggesting that firearms bans provide any benefit, aside from shifting the type of weapon chosen for violent crime to a different one.
It is an accepted principle of Western political philosophy that we should have as many freedoms as possible so long as they don't cause harm to others. The burden of proof is on advocates of banning firearms to show that firearms are a cause of harm, rather than a symptom of an existing problem.
|
On May 08 2013 11:53 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 08:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 08 2013 08:03 Oaky wrote:
The truth is in the pudding homes.
Australia got rid of guns, and they haven't had a SINGLE gun massacre since 96' Read the last few pages. Only NRA evidence is real evidence. Scientists, Doctors, and Non-American countries don't count as valid sources of information according to pro-gun people on this thread. Here's your most recent gun study. Pew Research. Dated today. Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
Note that homicide overall dropped by a similar percentage, so the proportion of murders that are gun-based is approximately the same.
Edit: To expand a bit, this article points more to the overall sensationalist nature of the modern media than it does to anything regarding guns. I mean, crime is down hugely! The broken windows policies worked! But we never hear about it because that just doesn't make news.
I don't know why they got so fixated on the gun stats, honestly. I'm sure if you polled about whether people thought crime was worse people wouldn't know the truth either.
|
On May 08 2013 14:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:
People shooting people with guns is a behavior problem.
Using the health system to deal with behavior problems, well. The biggest example would be treatment of drug and alcohol addiction.
It has had decidedly mixed results in preventing relapses. As has stopping the supply side of drugs, and making prescription drugs that cannot be altered into a snortable or injectable form, analogous to putting all these new features on guns to make them harder to use. People will find ways around these safeguards. They always do.
Safeguards may not stop the most determined individuals but they can help prevent accidents or unnecessary problems.
I was thinking about your analogy with regards to meth and it went something along these lines: laws and safeguards make meth harder to make which makes it harder to acquire so only those determined enough will have access to meth, so theoretically we should end up with less meth addicts. Of course there are still negative consequences due to the safeguards, but I would argue that they mostly affect those already addicted to meth and that different strategies are applied in actually helping addicts come clean from addiction.
Then I was trying to run through the analogy with regards to marijuana and I couldn't think of significant downsides of not restricting it (at least not compared to other drugs including tobacco and alcohol). So it occurred to me that in reality most governments just base their restrictions and safeguards on how much money they can make from these products while still remaining popular (not a very startling revelation I know). So I think guns will probably follow the same formula, as long as they are profitable and popular not much will change and when incidents like school shootings occur one side will say that "we need more regulations" and the other will say "guns save lives" and still not much will change.
|
On May 08 2013 15:46 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 15:26 Euronyme wrote:
The only legitimate comparison to the US would as far as I know be Western Europe. Every country here has complete gun ban for their citizens and a monopoly of violence resting with the collective state. Ie the mob doesn't rule - law does. The risk of an invasion or a civil war is prohibited by well functioning democracies and international cooperation. Guns don't and won't bring anything good to the table. I would like to see "gun people" make a similar argument to why it would be a good idea for European nations to open up for public gun ownership as their argument to preserve their own laws. Because there is no evidence suggesting that firearms bans provide any benefit, aside from shifting the type of weapon chosen for violent crime to a different one. It is an accepted principle of Western political philosophy that we should have as many freedoms as possible so long as they don't cause harm to others. The burden of proof is on advocates of banning firearms to show that firearms are a cause of harm, rather than a symptom of an existing problem.
Exactly. Firearms are designed to do harm to others, thus preventing them from exercising their freedom. Violent crime rates are much lower in western Europe, and gun related crimes are extremely uncommon. It's been proven that the easier and the less personal the situation is, the more likely people are to do harm unto others. For instance the famous experiment with a person pushing a button, giving another person electrical shocks causing excruciating pain.
With kitchen knives as the most common murder weapon it takes a whole lot more from a person than pulling a trigger. I don't have any facts to back that up, but it makes sence to me.
|
On May 08 2013 14:05 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 08:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 08 2013 08:03 Oaky wrote:
The truth is in the pudding homes.
Australia got rid of guns, and they haven't had a SINGLE gun massacre since 96' Read the last few pages. Only NRA evidence is real evidence. Scientists, Doctors, and Non-American countries don't count as valid sources of information according to pro-gun people on this thread. Strawman more. Evidence that doesn't fail basic statistics or fail to consider overall violent crime rates instead of simply gun violence rates is not evidence. Evidence done by public health researchers instead of criminologists is not real evidence. That still leaves plenty of evidence, none of which concludes that banning guns makes any significant difference in overall violent crime rates. The only thing banning guns does is causing violent crimes to be carried out with different weapons.
Wasn't arguing--he was implicitly asking why with first world countries out there not having mass shootings after banning guns why is it that the US won't do the same. I told him what your guy's arguments of the last few pages was.
That's not argumentation, that's telling him to read a few pages back. It's impossible to strawman "read what they already said."
|
On May 08 2013 07:20 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 07:10 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 06:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Millitron, would you be opposed to working on the two problems in parallel?
1) Reduce overall crime by attacking the causes of crime. <--- This one is very broad and as a result very difficult to tackle, but there it is anyway.
2) Reduce overall numbers for firearm accidental injury, death, assault, homicide, and suicide. <--- This one is pretty broad, but could be readily addressed in accordance with a standard public health approach.
Is there a good reason for these two efforts being mutually exclusive? Perhaps I'm not following you correctly, but it seems that you are against addressing guns because you are in favor of addressing crime. I think it might be reasonable to be in favor of both, personally. It depends on how you do #2. I'm not really convinced that "Public Health" is a thing, but I can accept that reducing deaths is a good thing. The issue I have is that gun-rights are also good, and at least in my opinion outweigh the lives lost, especially considering that gun-violence has been on a pretty steep downward trend in the last decade. Assuming "public health issues" are plagues like AIDS or the lack of quality control in meatpacking plants in the early 1900's, this makes gun-violence not much of an issue, considering its already going down naturally. Why try to fix a problem that's already solving itself? This has been going on for a few pages now but you guys keep talking about the "benefits" of having gun rights. I can see the moral imperative in having them and I can see the benefits of having individual liberties and freedoms, but what kind of "benefits" are you referring to when you say that it outweighs the one million or so deaths that have occurred in the past decade? Just curious.
I care about the moral imperative, though there's also self-defense, hunting, and being able to protect against tyranny.
In any case, why is there no huge outcry against alcohol? That kills 100,000 every year as opposed to the 30,000 or so from guns. Even excluding things like Liver Failure, alcohol still kills more than guns. It doesn't seem like you people care about the lives, it seems to be about things you don't like.
On May 08 2013 21:14 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 15:46 sunprince wrote:On May 08 2013 15:26 Euronyme wrote:
The only legitimate comparison to the US would as far as I know be Western Europe. Every country here has complete gun ban for their citizens and a monopoly of violence resting with the collective state. Ie the mob doesn't rule - law does. The risk of an invasion or a civil war is prohibited by well functioning democracies and international cooperation. Guns don't and won't bring anything good to the table. I would like to see "gun people" make a similar argument to why it would be a good idea for European nations to open up for public gun ownership as their argument to preserve their own laws. Because there is no evidence suggesting that firearms bans provide any benefit, aside from shifting the type of weapon chosen for violent crime to a different one. It is an accepted principle of Western political philosophy that we should have as many freedoms as possible so long as they don't cause harm to others. The burden of proof is on advocates of banning firearms to show that firearms are a cause of harm, rather than a symptom of an existing problem. Exactly. Firearms are designed to do harm to others, thus preventing them from exercising their freedom. Violent crime rates are much lower in western Europe, and gun related crimes are extremely uncommon. It's been proven that the easier and the less personal the situation is, the more likely people are to do harm unto others. For instance the famous experiment with a person pushing a button, giving another person electrical shocks causing excruciating pain. With kitchen knives as the most common murder weapon it takes a whole lot more from a person than pulling a trigger. I don't have any facts to back that up, but it makes sence to me.
They aren't lower in the UK, where socioeconomic factors are much more similar to the US, than say Germany.
|
On May 09 2013 01:41 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 07:20 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 08 2013 07:10 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 06:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Millitron, would you be opposed to working on the two problems in parallel?
1) Reduce overall crime by attacking the causes of crime. <--- This one is very broad and as a result very difficult to tackle, but there it is anyway.
2) Reduce overall numbers for firearm accidental injury, death, assault, homicide, and suicide. <--- This one is pretty broad, but could be readily addressed in accordance with a standard public health approach.
Is there a good reason for these two efforts being mutually exclusive? Perhaps I'm not following you correctly, but it seems that you are against addressing guns because you are in favor of addressing crime. I think it might be reasonable to be in favor of both, personally. It depends on how you do #2. I'm not really convinced that "Public Health" is a thing, but I can accept that reducing deaths is a good thing. The issue I have is that gun-rights are also good, and at least in my opinion outweigh the lives lost, especially considering that gun-violence has been on a pretty steep downward trend in the last decade. Assuming "public health issues" are plagues like AIDS or the lack of quality control in meatpacking plants in the early 1900's, this makes gun-violence not much of an issue, considering its already going down naturally. Why try to fix a problem that's already solving itself? This has been going on for a few pages now but you guys keep talking about the "benefits" of having gun rights. I can see the moral imperative in having them and I can see the benefits of having individual liberties and freedoms, but what kind of "benefits" are you referring to when you say that it outweighs the one million or so deaths that have occurred in the past decade? Just curious. I care about the moral imperative, though there's also self-defense, hunting, and being able to protect against tyranny. In any case, why is there no huge outcry against alcohol? That kills 100,000 every year as opposed to the 30,000 or so from guns. Even excluding things like Liver Failure, alcohol still kills more than guns. It doesn't seem like you people care about the lives, it seems to be about things you don't like.
You mean other than age restrictions, distribution restrictions, random and regular breathalizer checks on roadways, Alcohol level restrictions when at work or on the road, etc...
You mean other than those restrictions?
|
On May 09 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 01:41 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 07:20 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 08 2013 07:10 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 06:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Millitron, would you be opposed to working on the two problems in parallel?
1) Reduce overall crime by attacking the causes of crime. <--- This one is very broad and as a result very difficult to tackle, but there it is anyway.
2) Reduce overall numbers for firearm accidental injury, death, assault, homicide, and suicide. <--- This one is pretty broad, but could be readily addressed in accordance with a standard public health approach.
Is there a good reason for these two efforts being mutually exclusive? Perhaps I'm not following you correctly, but it seems that you are against addressing guns because you are in favor of addressing crime. I think it might be reasonable to be in favor of both, personally. It depends on how you do #2. I'm not really convinced that "Public Health" is a thing, but I can accept that reducing deaths is a good thing. The issue I have is that gun-rights are also good, and at least in my opinion outweigh the lives lost, especially considering that gun-violence has been on a pretty steep downward trend in the last decade. Assuming "public health issues" are plagues like AIDS or the lack of quality control in meatpacking plants in the early 1900's, this makes gun-violence not much of an issue, considering its already going down naturally. Why try to fix a problem that's already solving itself? This has been going on for a few pages now but you guys keep talking about the "benefits" of having gun rights. I can see the moral imperative in having them and I can see the benefits of having individual liberties and freedoms, but what kind of "benefits" are you referring to when you say that it outweighs the one million or so deaths that have occurred in the past decade? Just curious. I care about the moral imperative, though there's also self-defense, hunting, and being able to protect against tyranny. In any case, why is there no huge outcry against alcohol? That kills 100,000 every year as opposed to the 30,000 or so from guns. Even excluding things like Liver Failure, alcohol still kills more than guns. It doesn't seem like you people care about the lives, it seems to be about things you don't like. You mean other than age restrictions, distribution restrictions, random and regular breathalizer checks on roadways, Alcohol level restrictions when at work or on the road, etc... You mean other than those restrictions?
He said outcry not restriction. There are restrictions on both guns and alcohol. Nobody seems to be asking for prohibition even though not only does it lead to more deaths per year, but even those who just live with alcoholism generally lead a shitty lifestyle (not all of course).
|
On May 09 2013 01:53 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2013 01:41 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 07:20 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 08 2013 07:10 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 06:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Millitron, would you be opposed to working on the two problems in parallel?
1) Reduce overall crime by attacking the causes of crime. <--- This one is very broad and as a result very difficult to tackle, but there it is anyway.
2) Reduce overall numbers for firearm accidental injury, death, assault, homicide, and suicide. <--- This one is pretty broad, but could be readily addressed in accordance with a standard public health approach.
Is there a good reason for these two efforts being mutually exclusive? Perhaps I'm not following you correctly, but it seems that you are against addressing guns because you are in favor of addressing crime. I think it might be reasonable to be in favor of both, personally. It depends on how you do #2. I'm not really convinced that "Public Health" is a thing, but I can accept that reducing deaths is a good thing. The issue I have is that gun-rights are also good, and at least in my opinion outweigh the lives lost, especially considering that gun-violence has been on a pretty steep downward trend in the last decade. Assuming "public health issues" are plagues like AIDS or the lack of quality control in meatpacking plants in the early 1900's, this makes gun-violence not much of an issue, considering its already going down naturally. Why try to fix a problem that's already solving itself? This has been going on for a few pages now but you guys keep talking about the "benefits" of having gun rights. I can see the moral imperative in having them and I can see the benefits of having individual liberties and freedoms, but what kind of "benefits" are you referring to when you say that it outweighs the one million or so deaths that have occurred in the past decade? Just curious. I care about the moral imperative, though there's also self-defense, hunting, and being able to protect against tyranny. In any case, why is there no huge outcry against alcohol? That kills 100,000 every year as opposed to the 30,000 or so from guns. Even excluding things like Liver Failure, alcohol still kills more than guns. It doesn't seem like you people care about the lives, it seems to be about things you don't like. You mean other than age restrictions, distribution restrictions, random and regular breathalizer checks on roadways, Alcohol level restrictions when at work or on the road, etc... You mean other than those restrictions? He said outcry not restriction. There are restrictions on both guns and alcohol. Nobody seems to be asking for prohibition even though not only does it lead to more deaths per year, but even those who just live with alcoholism generally lead a shitty lifestyle (not all of course).
You mean the giant billboards/tv commercials/school programs that do nothing but tell people to stop drinking so much? You mean the fact that public drinking is illegal in the US is not enough? Drinking is restricted to either private property or regulated drinking zones oft known as bars.
There is outcry, and there is regulation (heavy actually), and if you were drunk during the time of a crime--it works heavily against you because it is assumed that people who are drunks are less trustworthy or legitimate.
|
United States24701 Posts
On May 09 2013 02:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 01:53 NoobSkills wrote:On May 09 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2013 01:41 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 07:20 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 08 2013 07:10 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 06:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Millitron, would you be opposed to working on the two problems in parallel?
1) Reduce overall crime by attacking the causes of crime. <--- This one is very broad and as a result very difficult to tackle, but there it is anyway.
2) Reduce overall numbers for firearm accidental injury, death, assault, homicide, and suicide. <--- This one is pretty broad, but could be readily addressed in accordance with a standard public health approach.
Is there a good reason for these two efforts being mutually exclusive? Perhaps I'm not following you correctly, but it seems that you are against addressing guns because you are in favor of addressing crime. I think it might be reasonable to be in favor of both, personally. It depends on how you do #2. I'm not really convinced that "Public Health" is a thing, but I can accept that reducing deaths is a good thing. The issue I have is that gun-rights are also good, and at least in my opinion outweigh the lives lost, especially considering that gun-violence has been on a pretty steep downward trend in the last decade. Assuming "public health issues" are plagues like AIDS or the lack of quality control in meatpacking plants in the early 1900's, this makes gun-violence not much of an issue, considering its already going down naturally. Why try to fix a problem that's already solving itself? This has been going on for a few pages now but you guys keep talking about the "benefits" of having gun rights. I can see the moral imperative in having them and I can see the benefits of having individual liberties and freedoms, but what kind of "benefits" are you referring to when you say that it outweighs the one million or so deaths that have occurred in the past decade? Just curious. I care about the moral imperative, though there's also self-defense, hunting, and being able to protect against tyranny. In any case, why is there no huge outcry against alcohol? That kills 100,000 every year as opposed to the 30,000 or so from guns. Even excluding things like Liver Failure, alcohol still kills more than guns. It doesn't seem like you people care about the lives, it seems to be about things you don't like. You mean other than age restrictions, distribution restrictions, random and regular breathalizer checks on roadways, Alcohol level restrictions when at work or on the road, etc... You mean other than those restrictions? He said outcry not restriction. There are restrictions on both guns and alcohol. Nobody seems to be asking for prohibition even though not only does it lead to more deaths per year, but even those who just live with alcoholism generally lead a shitty lifestyle (not all of course). You mean the giant billboards/tv commercials/school programs that do nothing but tell people to stop drinking so much? You mean the fact that public drinking is illegal in the US is not enough? Drinking is restricted to either private property or regulated drinking zones oft known as bars. There is outcry, and there is regulation (heavy actually), and if you were drunk during the time of a crime--it works heavily against you because it is assumed that people who are drunks are less trustworthy or legitimate.
I won't say anything you said is wrong necessarily, but alcohol doesn't seem to be treated like a controversial issue (in my experience) despite the fact that it is still a major problem. Guns are treated like a highly controversial issue. There seems to be an imbalance in this regard.
Just using TL as a case study... I don't see threads of people discussing what we should do about alcohol problems. There is a nonstop thread what should be done about guns.
|
On May 09 2013 02:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 01:53 NoobSkills wrote:On May 09 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2013 01:41 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 07:20 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 08 2013 07:10 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 06:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Millitron, would you be opposed to working on the two problems in parallel?
1) Reduce overall crime by attacking the causes of crime. <--- This one is very broad and as a result very difficult to tackle, but there it is anyway.
2) Reduce overall numbers for firearm accidental injury, death, assault, homicide, and suicide. <--- This one is pretty broad, but could be readily addressed in accordance with a standard public health approach.
Is there a good reason for these two efforts being mutually exclusive? Perhaps I'm not following you correctly, but it seems that you are against addressing guns because you are in favor of addressing crime. I think it might be reasonable to be in favor of both, personally. It depends on how you do #2. I'm not really convinced that "Public Health" is a thing, but I can accept that reducing deaths is a good thing. The issue I have is that gun-rights are also good, and at least in my opinion outweigh the lives lost, especially considering that gun-violence has been on a pretty steep downward trend in the last decade. Assuming "public health issues" are plagues like AIDS or the lack of quality control in meatpacking plants in the early 1900's, this makes gun-violence not much of an issue, considering its already going down naturally. Why try to fix a problem that's already solving itself? This has been going on for a few pages now but you guys keep talking about the "benefits" of having gun rights. I can see the moral imperative in having them and I can see the benefits of having individual liberties and freedoms, but what kind of "benefits" are you referring to when you say that it outweighs the one million or so deaths that have occurred in the past decade? Just curious. I care about the moral imperative, though there's also self-defense, hunting, and being able to protect against tyranny. In any case, why is there no huge outcry against alcohol? That kills 100,000 every year as opposed to the 30,000 or so from guns. Even excluding things like Liver Failure, alcohol still kills more than guns. It doesn't seem like you people care about the lives, it seems to be about things you don't like. You mean other than age restrictions, distribution restrictions, random and regular breathalizer checks on roadways, Alcohol level restrictions when at work or on the road, etc... You mean other than those restrictions? He said outcry not restriction. There are restrictions on both guns and alcohol. Nobody seems to be asking for prohibition even though not only does it lead to more deaths per year, but even those who just live with alcoholism generally lead a shitty lifestyle (not all of course). You mean the giant billboards/tv commercials/school programs that do nothing but tell people to stop drinking so much? You mean the fact that public drinking is illegal in the US is not enough? Drinking is restricted to either private property or regulated drinking zones oft known as bars. There is outcry, and there is regulation (heavy actually), and if you were drunk during the time of a crime--it works heavily against you because it is assumed that people who are drunks are less trustworthy or legitimate.
He's just pointing out how hypocritical it is to say the reason you oppose firearms is because of the fatalities. Public consumption is a local thing not nationwide. For instance a walk down the street in New Orleans and you will see people legally drinking in the streets everyday. I also would in no way consider unlimited access to alcohol at a certain age heavily restricted. Of course you can't drink and drive but you can't do a lot of things while driving don't confuse heavy restrictions on driving with alcohol restrictions
|
On May 09 2013 02:13 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 02:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2013 01:53 NoobSkills wrote:On May 09 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2013 01:41 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 07:20 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 08 2013 07:10 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 06:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Millitron, would you be opposed to working on the two problems in parallel?
1) Reduce overall crime by attacking the causes of crime. <--- This one is very broad and as a result very difficult to tackle, but there it is anyway.
2) Reduce overall numbers for firearm accidental injury, death, assault, homicide, and suicide. <--- This one is pretty broad, but could be readily addressed in accordance with a standard public health approach.
Is there a good reason for these two efforts being mutually exclusive? Perhaps I'm not following you correctly, but it seems that you are against addressing guns because you are in favor of addressing crime. I think it might be reasonable to be in favor of both, personally. It depends on how you do #2. I'm not really convinced that "Public Health" is a thing, but I can accept that reducing deaths is a good thing. The issue I have is that gun-rights are also good, and at least in my opinion outweigh the lives lost, especially considering that gun-violence has been on a pretty steep downward trend in the last decade. Assuming "public health issues" are plagues like AIDS or the lack of quality control in meatpacking plants in the early 1900's, this makes gun-violence not much of an issue, considering its already going down naturally. Why try to fix a problem that's already solving itself? This has been going on for a few pages now but you guys keep talking about the "benefits" of having gun rights. I can see the moral imperative in having them and I can see the benefits of having individual liberties and freedoms, but what kind of "benefits" are you referring to when you say that it outweighs the one million or so deaths that have occurred in the past decade? Just curious. I care about the moral imperative, though there's also self-defense, hunting, and being able to protect against tyranny. In any case, why is there no huge outcry against alcohol? That kills 100,000 every year as opposed to the 30,000 or so from guns. Even excluding things like Liver Failure, alcohol still kills more than guns. It doesn't seem like you people care about the lives, it seems to be about things you don't like. You mean other than age restrictions, distribution restrictions, random and regular breathalizer checks on roadways, Alcohol level restrictions when at work or on the road, etc... You mean other than those restrictions? He said outcry not restriction. There are restrictions on both guns and alcohol. Nobody seems to be asking for prohibition even though not only does it lead to more deaths per year, but even those who just live with alcoholism generally lead a shitty lifestyle (not all of course). You mean the giant billboards/tv commercials/school programs that do nothing but tell people to stop drinking so much? You mean the fact that public drinking is illegal in the US is not enough? Drinking is restricted to either private property or regulated drinking zones oft known as bars. There is outcry, and there is regulation (heavy actually), and if you were drunk during the time of a crime--it works heavily against you because it is assumed that people who are drunks are less trustworthy or legitimate. I won't say anything you said is wrong necessarily, but alcohol doesn't seem to be treated like a controversial issue (in my experience) despite the fact that it is still a major problem. Guns are treated like a highly controversial issue. There seems to be an imbalance in this regard. Just using TL as a case study... I don't see threads of people discussing what we should do about alcohol problems. There is a nonstop thread what should be done about guns.
Yes, I agree that there isn't controversy--but I think that's because we came to an understanding (societally) about the place of alcohol in American Culture. We have have gone from 0 regulations all the way to amendment prohibition of alcohol and we found a happy medium where people can get alcohol easily enough while still stigmatizing it just enough that both sides are (for the most part) happy about it.
As an example, some states ban the sale of alcohol as early as 8pm at night. Some states have no bans on alcohol but bars must close at 2am. Whenever these get passed it suffers no real resistance because everyone's on the same side on the issue.
Alcoholism bad, drunk driving bad, social drinking good, drunk sex good. Because an understanding was reached (albeit only after a national ban on it) we as a nation have come to terms with it.
|
On May 09 2013 02:20 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 02:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2013 01:53 NoobSkills wrote:On May 09 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2013 01:41 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 07:20 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 08 2013 07:10 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 06:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Millitron, would you be opposed to working on the two problems in parallel?
1) Reduce overall crime by attacking the causes of crime. <--- This one is very broad and as a result very difficult to tackle, but there it is anyway.
2) Reduce overall numbers for firearm accidental injury, death, assault, homicide, and suicide. <--- This one is pretty broad, but could be readily addressed in accordance with a standard public health approach.
Is there a good reason for these two efforts being mutually exclusive? Perhaps I'm not following you correctly, but it seems that you are against addressing guns because you are in favor of addressing crime. I think it might be reasonable to be in favor of both, personally. It depends on how you do #2. I'm not really convinced that "Public Health" is a thing, but I can accept that reducing deaths is a good thing. The issue I have is that gun-rights are also good, and at least in my opinion outweigh the lives lost, especially considering that gun-violence has been on a pretty steep downward trend in the last decade. Assuming "public health issues" are plagues like AIDS or the lack of quality control in meatpacking plants in the early 1900's, this makes gun-violence not much of an issue, considering its already going down naturally. Why try to fix a problem that's already solving itself? This has been going on for a few pages now but you guys keep talking about the "benefits" of having gun rights. I can see the moral imperative in having them and I can see the benefits of having individual liberties and freedoms, but what kind of "benefits" are you referring to when you say that it outweighs the one million or so deaths that have occurred in the past decade? Just curious. I care about the moral imperative, though there's also self-defense, hunting, and being able to protect against tyranny. In any case, why is there no huge outcry against alcohol? That kills 100,000 every year as opposed to the 30,000 or so from guns. Even excluding things like Liver Failure, alcohol still kills more than guns. It doesn't seem like you people care about the lives, it seems to be about things you don't like. You mean other than age restrictions, distribution restrictions, random and regular breathalizer checks on roadways, Alcohol level restrictions when at work or on the road, etc... You mean other than those restrictions? He said outcry not restriction. There are restrictions on both guns and alcohol. Nobody seems to be asking for prohibition even though not only does it lead to more deaths per year, but even those who just live with alcoholism generally lead a shitty lifestyle (not all of course). You mean the giant billboards/tv commercials/school programs that do nothing but tell people to stop drinking so much? You mean the fact that public drinking is illegal in the US is not enough? Drinking is restricted to either private property or regulated drinking zones oft known as bars. There is outcry, and there is regulation (heavy actually), and if you were drunk during the time of a crime--it works heavily against you because it is assumed that people who are drunks are less trustworthy or legitimate. He's just pointing out how hypocritical it is to say the reason you oppose firearms is because of the fatalities. Public consumption is a local thing not nationwide. For instance a walk down the street in New Orleans and you will see people legally drinking in the streets everyday. I also would in no way consider unlimited access to alcohol at a certain age heavily restricted. Of course you can't drink and drive but you can't do a lot of things while driving don't confuse heavy restrictions on driving with alcohol restrictions
I know what he was getting at--but his example was wrong. America's relationship with alcohol has gone through both extremes and has finally come to a happy medium where (for the most part) everyone's on the same side. We have people in this thread who are okay with having their kids sleep with shotguns while it's still illegal to sell alcohol to minors. We have school programs happening everyday where people walk into a room full of kids telling them the shitty world of drinking drugs. Heavy drinking is highly stigmatized in the US and is usually culturally linked to recklessness, homelessness, or stupidity.
The only real thing that drinking has for it is that, when people do it responsibly, it is considered a good thing.
|
United States24701 Posts
On May 09 2013 02:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 02:13 micronesia wrote:On May 09 2013 02:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2013 01:53 NoobSkills wrote:On May 09 2013 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2013 01:41 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 07:20 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 08 2013 07:10 Millitron wrote:On May 08 2013 06:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Millitron, would you be opposed to working on the two problems in parallel?
1) Reduce overall crime by attacking the causes of crime. <--- This one is very broad and as a result very difficult to tackle, but there it is anyway.
2) Reduce overall numbers for firearm accidental injury, death, assault, homicide, and suicide. <--- This one is pretty broad, but could be readily addressed in accordance with a standard public health approach.
Is there a good reason for these two efforts being mutually exclusive? Perhaps I'm not following you correctly, but it seems that you are against addressing guns because you are in favor of addressing crime. I think it might be reasonable to be in favor of both, personally. It depends on how you do #2. I'm not really convinced that "Public Health" is a thing, but I can accept that reducing deaths is a good thing. The issue I have is that gun-rights are also good, and at least in my opinion outweigh the lives lost, especially considering that gun-violence has been on a pretty steep downward trend in the last decade. Assuming "public health issues" are plagues like AIDS or the lack of quality control in meatpacking plants in the early 1900's, this makes gun-violence not much of an issue, considering its already going down naturally. Why try to fix a problem that's already solving itself? This has been going on for a few pages now but you guys keep talking about the "benefits" of having gun rights. I can see the moral imperative in having them and I can see the benefits of having individual liberties and freedoms, but what kind of "benefits" are you referring to when you say that it outweighs the one million or so deaths that have occurred in the past decade? Just curious. I care about the moral imperative, though there's also self-defense, hunting, and being able to protect against tyranny. In any case, why is there no huge outcry against alcohol? That kills 100,000 every year as opposed to the 30,000 or so from guns. Even excluding things like Liver Failure, alcohol still kills more than guns. It doesn't seem like you people care about the lives, it seems to be about things you don't like. You mean other than age restrictions, distribution restrictions, random and regular breathalizer checks on roadways, Alcohol level restrictions when at work or on the road, etc... You mean other than those restrictions? He said outcry not restriction. There are restrictions on both guns and alcohol. Nobody seems to be asking for prohibition even though not only does it lead to more deaths per year, but even those who just live with alcoholism generally lead a shitty lifestyle (not all of course). You mean the giant billboards/tv commercials/school programs that do nothing but tell people to stop drinking so much? You mean the fact that public drinking is illegal in the US is not enough? Drinking is restricted to either private property or regulated drinking zones oft known as bars. There is outcry, and there is regulation (heavy actually), and if you were drunk during the time of a crime--it works heavily against you because it is assumed that people who are drunks are less trustworthy or legitimate. I won't say anything you said is wrong necessarily, but alcohol doesn't seem to be treated like a controversial issue (in my experience) despite the fact that it is still a major problem. Guns are treated like a highly controversial issue. There seems to be an imbalance in this regard. Just using TL as a case study... I don't see threads of people discussing what we should do about alcohol problems. There is a nonstop thread what should be done about guns. Yes, I agree that there isn't controversy--but I think that's because we came to an understanding (societally) about the place of alcohol in American Culture. We have have gone from 0 regulations all the way to amendment prohibition of alcohol and we found a happy medium where people can get alcohol easily enough while still stigmatizing it just enough that both sides are (for the most part) happy about it. As an example, some states ban the sale of alcohol as early as 8pm at night. Some states have no bans on alcohol but bars must close at 2am. Whenever these get passed it suffers no real resistance because everyone's on the same side on the issue. Alcoholism bad, drunk driving bad, social drinking good, drunk sex good. Because an understanding was reached (albeit only after a national ban on it) we as a nation have come to terms with it.
To put this in perspective though, everyone is on the same side of the alcohol position apparently, and yet it still is a bigger threat than firearms statistically (according to what was said earlier).
|
Dear Sc fans,
Consider historically the foremost leaders in gun control;
- Adolf Hitler
- Mao Zedong
- Joseph Stalin
Names sound familiar? If not, stop debating on gun control. These dictators were all about gun control. What happened subsequently? If you answered "they killed many of their own, defenseless citizens", you are correct! Do you think the minorities in Germany would have stood a better chance versus Nazis if they were armed? Probably. I wonder why this does not come up in the debates. Look, good people are good people. Bad people, will also be bad people. There are good and bad everywhere, in every corner of the world. By making guns illegal, you only take them away from good natured, law abiding citizens. If they were not law abiding, then they do not own a registered gun, and they are certainly not turning them in. Thus, how can any government pursue any legislation to confiscate such? Furthermore, how do you explain Fast and Furious FBI/ATF sting operation? Look it up - the US government sold 1,000's of guns to the Mexican drug cartel. You know, the gang shooting, and decapitating people in MX? Real nice guys. Also, consider the fact the the CIA started the Mujadeen. Who are they, you may ask... well Sirs, they are now know as... (drum roll) Al Qaeda! Yes, the US government created Al Qaeda during the "Cold War" as a means to create a proxy war to embattle Russia. Look how that ended up. They want to take guns away from citizens and give them to gangsters, and terrorists? Real sound logic there...... My point being is that when you give ANY government the power to determine who can defend themselves, there will be victims. No man, or organization should have the power to tell the average joe what they can and cant own. That is way too much centralized power.
Please go buy a gun, and use it responsibly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
