|
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 09 2013 02:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 02:20 heliusx 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. 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.
Ok, that went right over your head. Carry on.
|
On May 09 2013 02:37 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 02:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 09 2013 02:20 heliusx 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. 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. Ok, that went right over your head. Carry on.
Carry on? I already made my point.
He said why isn't there outcry for alcohol--there was outcry. A lot of regulations have been passed and taken back over the years, prohibition groups have come and gone through the years, amendments were passed, etc...
Alcohol has had a great deal of turmoil and outcry for many many many years. We, as a nation, have come to an agreement on it. This does not mean that alcohol is this safe innocuous thing that people don't care about. It was a big fucking deal for a far longer time than guns have been a big deal; which is why it is inaccurate to use it as a comparative example.
If we treated guns like we treated alcohol we would test out removing the 2nd amendment and seeing how good that turns out and only putting it back on if it will improve the US as a whole. As far as I can tell, no one is even arguing to ban guns on an amendment level--so no, it's hasn't been made as big a deal as alcohol has been in America's recent history.
|
I don't really get the comparison to alcohol. The reason people are worried about guns isn't because people accidentally shoot themselves, but because they can be construed as a threat to other people and because they affect the potency of violence by way of being accessible. In the case of alcohol, liver disease only affects the person who drinks the alcohol, not others. Any interpersonal effects of alcohol (e.g. drunk driving) that result in dangerous situations for other people are already illegal.
If we really want to get into it, I'd argue that excessive intake of alcohol is immoral anyhow, but it doesn't require legal measures because, ultimately, alcohol abuse only kills the abuser; any interpersonal affects resulting from alcohol abuse (assault, sexual assault, drunk driving, etc) are already illegal.
|
On May 09 2013 02:51 Shiori wrote:
Any interpersonal effects of alcohol (e.g. drunk driving) that result in dangerous situations for other people are already illegal.
What a coincidence so is shooting people.
|
On May 09 2013 02:53 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 02:51 Shiori wrote:
Any interpersonal effects of alcohol (e.g. drunk driving) that result in dangerous situations for other people are already illegal. What a coincidence so is shooting people.
Stand Your Ground says hello.
|
United States24701 Posts
On May 09 2013 02:51 Shiori wrote:
I don't really get the comparison to alcohol. The reason people are worried about guns isn't because people accidentally shoot themselves, but because they can be construed as a threat to other people and because they affect the potency of violence by way of being accessible. In the case of alcohol, liver disease only affects the person who drinks the alcohol, not others. Any interpersonal effects of alcohol (e.g. drunk driving) that result in dangerous situations for other people are already illegal.
If we really want to get into it, I'd argue that excessive intake of alcohol is immoral anyhow, but it doesn't require legal measures because, ultimately, alcohol abuse only kills the abuser; any interpersonal affects resulting from alcohol abuse (assault, sexual assault, drunk driving, etc) are already illegal.
Similarly, any interpersonal affects resulting from gun abuse (assault, drunk shooting, etc) are also illegal. The fact that the majority of alcohol related murders are negligent instead of intended murder doesn't really matter. If my family member is killed, whether it's by a gang member with a gun or a drunk driver with a car, the end result is pretty much the same in my position. I think the point being made is just that guns are not being addressed in a way proportional to their threat, when compared to other threats to innocent life.
On May 09 2013 02:54 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 02:53 heliusx wrote:On May 09 2013 02:51 Shiori wrote:
Any interpersonal effects of alcohol (e.g. drunk driving) that result in dangerous situations for other people are already illegal. What a coincidence so is shooting people. Stand Your Ground says hello.
Laws that allow one person to shoot each other are mostly self defense.
|
On May 09 2013 02:54 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 02:53 heliusx wrote:On May 09 2013 02:51 Shiori wrote:
Any interpersonal effects of alcohol (e.g. drunk driving) that result in dangerous situations for other people are already illegal. What a coincidence so is shooting people. Stand Your Ground says hello.
I'm not exactly a fan of that law but it only applies to Florida. Anyways, are you comparing self defense with murder?
|
On May 09 2013 02:53 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 02:51 Shiori wrote:
Any interpersonal effects of alcohol (e.g. drunk driving) that result in dangerous situations for other people are already illegal. What a coincidence so is shooting people.
And yet access to alcohol does not intrinsically increase the chances of death resulting from a crime. Conversely, making guns easily available means that, should one wish to hurt another person, a gun is the easiest, most reasonable tool to use.
I suppose the main difference, to me, is that putting guns in homes means that situations that ordinarily might have resulted in a physical altercation might now result in some idiot grabbing their gun out of anger. In my country (Canada) firearms are mostly restricted. I feel safe knowing that even if I somehow offend another person, I know that chances are they won't be able to shoot me because most people (i.e. people who follow the law) don't carry guns. I've been in situations where people have been angry enough that I feared they'd kill each other if they had the means. I'm just glad they didn't.
This, combined with the lack of arguments as to why guns are really needed for anyone, is why I'm not particularly enticed by arguments for lax gun control.
|
On May 09 2013 02:57 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 02:54 McBengt wrote:On May 09 2013 02:53 heliusx wrote:On May 09 2013 02:51 Shiori wrote:
Any interpersonal effects of alcohol (e.g. drunk driving) that result in dangerous situations for other people are already illegal. What a coincidence so is shooting people. Stand Your Ground says hello. I'm not exactly a fan of that law but it only applies to Florida. Anyways, are you comparing self defense with murder?
No, but drunk driving is manslaughter, right? Anyway, Stand Your Ground is more symptomatic than anything, it reflects a general attitude towards the idea of shooting other people for even a perceived threat.
|
On May 09 2013 02:57 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 02:54 McBengt wrote:On May 09 2013 02:53 heliusx wrote:On May 09 2013 02:51 Shiori wrote:
Any interpersonal effects of alcohol (e.g. drunk driving) that result in dangerous situations for other people are already illegal. What a coincidence so is shooting people. Stand Your Ground says hello. I'm not exactly a fan of that law but it only applies to Florida. Anyways, are you comparing self defense with murder?
I was actually fine with Stand Your Ground as a concept until the Travyon case happened where a guy with a gun chases someone who is unarmed, and then uses stand your ground as his defense for shooting someone.
Thank god it's not a federal law.
|
On May 09 2013 03:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 02:57 heliusx wrote:On May 09 2013 02:54 McBengt wrote:On May 09 2013 02:53 heliusx wrote:On May 09 2013 02:51 Shiori wrote:
Any interpersonal effects of alcohol (e.g. drunk driving) that result in dangerous situations for other people are already illegal. What a coincidence so is shooting people. Stand Your Ground says hello. I'm not exactly a fan of that law but it only applies to Florida. Anyways, are you comparing self defense with murder? I was actually fine with Stand Your Ground as a concept until the Travyon case happened where a guy with a gun chases someone who is unarmed, and then uses stand your ground as his defense for shooting someone. Thank god it's not a federal law.
He is not using stand your ground law as a defense. So I guess you're still fine with it.
|
On May 09 2013 03:00 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 02:57 heliusx wrote:On May 09 2013 02:54 McBengt wrote:On May 09 2013 02:53 heliusx wrote:On May 09 2013 02:51 Shiori wrote:
Any interpersonal effects of alcohol (e.g. drunk driving) that result in dangerous situations for other people are already illegal. What a coincidence so is shooting people. Stand Your Ground says hello. I'm not exactly a fan of that law but it only applies to Florida. Anyways, are you comparing self defense with murder? No, but drunk driving is manslaughter, right? Anyway, Stand Your Ground is more symptomatic than anything, it reflects a general attitude towards the idea of shooting other people for even a perceived threat.
The sky is blue, right? Stand your ground is a highly controversial law that reflects a very small fraction of the country seeing as no other state has such a law. But I guess it's easier to pretend it's federal law.
|
I think the point being made is just that guns are not being addressed in a way proportional to their threat, when compared to other threats to innocent life
What if guns were restricted the same way cars/driving is then ? Required theoretical/practical training (forbidden before 18/21, safety stuff, proper use, how to not let your kids grab it, etc) and necessity of having passed the tests to be able to buy/own ?
Just wondering (and not living in the US I don't know of the current restrictions). Maybe this would help at least for accidents or trigger happy people.
P.S: Please don't respond that it wouldn't erase the problem as an argument, nobody with a sane mind believe you can have 0% crime.
|
United States24701 Posts
On May 09 2013 03:10 rezoacken wrote:Show nested quote +I think the point being made is just that guns are not being addressed in a way proportional to their threat, when compared to other threats to innocent life What if guns were restricted the same way cars/driving is then ? Required theoretical/practical training (forbidden before 18/21, safety stuff, proper use, how to not let your kids grab it, etc) and necessity of having passed the tests to be able to buy/own ? Just wondering (and not living in the US I don't know of the current restrictions). Maybe this would help at least for accidents or trigger happy people. P.S: Please don't respond that it wouldn't erase the problem as an argument, nobody with a sane mind believe you can have 0% crime.
I think it's a good idea. Although I think supervised gun use for children should be considered as well.
As always, the devil is in the details though.
|
On May 09 2013 03:09 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 03:00 McBengt wrote:On May 09 2013 02:57 heliusx wrote:On May 09 2013 02:54 McBengt wrote:On May 09 2013 02:53 heliusx wrote:On May 09 2013 02:51 Shiori wrote:
Any interpersonal effects of alcohol (e.g. drunk driving) that result in dangerous situations for other people are already illegal. What a coincidence so is shooting people. Stand Your Ground says hello. I'm not exactly a fan of that law but it only applies to Florida. Anyways, are you comparing self defense with murder? No, but drunk driving is manslaughter, right? Anyway, Stand Your Ground is more symptomatic than anything, it reflects a general attitude towards the idea of shooting other people for even a perceived threat. The sky is blue, right? Stand your ground is a highly controversial law that reflects a very small fraction of the country seeing as no other state has such a law. But I guess it's easier to pretend it's federal law.
I never said it was a federal law, that was someone else.
|
On May 09 2013 02:59 Shiori wrote:
This, combined with the lack of arguments as to why guns are really needed for anyone, is why I'm not particularly enticed by arguments for lax gun control.
This has everything to do with your unwillingness to listen to other peoples opinions. You just ignore anyone you don't agree with. Fact is you have been extremely ignorant in this thread, so it's no wonder you feel that way.
|
On May 09 2013 03:10 rezoacken wrote:Show nested quote +I think the point being made is just that guns are not being addressed in a way proportional to their threat, when compared to other threats to innocent life What if guns were restricted the same way cars/driving is then ? Required theoretical/practical training (forbidden before 18/21, safety stuff, proper use, how to not let your kids grab it, etc) and necessity of having passed the tests to be able to buy/own ? Just wondering (and not living in the US I don't know of the current restrictions). Maybe this would help at least for accidents or trigger happy people. P.S: Please don't respond that it wouldn't erase the problem as an argument, nobody with a sane mind believe you can have 0% crime.
This sounds reasonable. I don't see why anyone would object to stringent training requirements for guns. I've seen the "my family raised me around guns since I was little" argument, but I don't think it holds water. I mean, my dad may have taken me out for drives before I was 16, but that doesn't mean I got advanced standing in the driver training program, nor should it, because the idea of government regulated training programs is to provide a standardized environment whereby everyone learns agreed upon essential skills.
|
On May 09 2013 02:36 USMarine wrote:
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.
Please go buy some books on basic logic, and perhaps focus on the section entitled, "False Equivocations and You." It's good stuff I promise.
|
On May 09 2013 03:12 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 03:10 rezoacken wrote:I think the point being made is just that guns are not being addressed in a way proportional to their threat, when compared to other threats to innocent life What if guns were restricted the same way cars/driving is then ? Required theoretical/practical training (forbidden before 18/21, safety stuff, proper use, how to not let your kids grab it, etc) and necessity of having passed the tests to be able to buy/own ? Just wondering (and not living in the US I don't know of the current restrictions). Maybe this would help at least for accidents or trigger happy people. P.S: Please don't respond that it wouldn't erase the problem as an argument, nobody with a sane mind believe you can have 0% crime. I think it's a good idea. Although I think supervised gun use for children should be considered as well. As always, the devil is in the details though.
Underage driving is legal with a permit+a licensed driver giving supervision. I don't see how it should be any different for guns.
|
On May 09 2013 03:13 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 02:59 Shiori wrote:
This, combined with the lack of arguments as to why guns are really needed for anyone, is why I'm not particularly enticed by arguments for lax gun control. This has everything to do with your unwillingness to listen to other peoples opinions. You just ignore anyone you don't agree with. Fact is you have been extremely ignorant in this thread, so it's no wonder you feel that way.
To recount the arguments I remember in favour of gun usage:
1) There's no reason to ban them (not exactly an argument in favour of guns, but I suppose it counts). I would argue that there are very clear reasons to ban guns insofar as their commonness makes violent crimes more dangerous.
2) Some vague assertion that they are necessary for self defense. I don't really buy this mostly because of the lack of parallels in countries with gun control. It doesn't seem like countries with strict gun control laws are having massive problems wherein their citizens are being slaughtered since they can't defend themselves. I think the danger to the average citizen is massively overstated since citizens in countries with gun control don't appear to be particularly unsafe versus those in countries without it.
3) Something about overthrowing tyranny. This, to me, is even more reaching than the self defense one. Aside from the fact that it's completely impractical, this argument could be applied to granting citizens possession of anything from handguns to nuclear missiles.
4) Hunting/target practice/recreation. This one I understand and have no problems with.
I don't consider myself a zealot in the fight against gun usage. I suspect that most people who own guns are responsible with them, but I frankly don't see why they're necessary beyond recreational usage (hunting, target practice etc)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
