|
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 12:26 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 12:03 Millitron wrote: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. And shooting people is already illegal too. But you don't see people calling for banning high-capacity beer bottles, or beer-cans designed to pour faster. You don't hear any outcry for banning extremely strong alcohol. Actually the US is a good example of a country with relatively strong and responsible control over alcohol consumption. There is a fair amount of consumption (much less than in western Europe), but a good amount of control over alcohol related problems: Show nested quote +
The world’s highest alcohol consumption levels are found in the developed world, including western and eastern Europe. High-income countries generally have the highest alcohol consumption. However, it does not follow that high income and high consumption always translate into high alcohol-related problems and high-risk drinking. Western European
countries have some of the highest consumption rates but their net alcohol-attributable mortality rates are relatively low, though their alcohol-related disease burden may be high. Many eastern European countries have the highest consumption, risky patterns of drinking and, accordingly, high levels of alcohol-related deaths and disabilities. Every fifth death is due to harmful drinking in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Outside of the Russian Federation and some neighbouring countries, rates of disease and disability attributable to alcohol are also quite high, for example, in Mexico and in most South American countries.
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/msbgsruprofiles.pdfPeople did call for measures related to alcohol responsibility and lowering of alcohol problems/deaths, even if they weren't your specific imagined ones ("banning strong alcohol"). It's a public health concern + Show Spoiler +so is firearm injury and death  Show nested quote +The public health objective on alcohol of the World Health Organization (WHO) is to reduce the health burden caused by the harmful use of alcohol and, thereby, to save lives, reduce disease and prevent injuries. The hazardous and harmful use of alcohol is a major global contributing factor to death, disease and injury: to the
drinker through health impacts, such as alcohol dependence, liver cirrhosis, cancers and injuries; and to others through the dangerous actions of intoxicated people, such as drink– driving and violence or through the impact of drinking on fetus and child development. The harmful use of alcohol results in approximately 2.5 million deaths each year, with a net loss of life of 2.25 million, taking into account the estimated beneficial impact of low levels of alcohol use on some diseases in some population groups. Harmful drinking can also be very costly to communities and societies.
Ah, but you don't see 24-hour coverage on every news station every time there's a big drunk driving wreck that kills a bunch of people. But if even two people in one situation get shot, that has a pretty good chance of making national news. Remember the shooting at the Empire State building? The gunman shot ONE person; it wasn't some massacre, it was a common murder, but it made national headlines.
There really isn't that much restriction on alcohol consumption, especially compared to what people are calling for about guns. There's just an age limit, occasional local laws banning public consumption, and you can't drive drunk. That's about it. You don't hear calls for alcohol registration, or banning high-capacity alcoholic drinks.
I think its because of two things. First, for whatever reason, the news doesn't mention alcohol. If the news went after alcohol like they do guns, you would see just as dumb legislation get proposed, because lots of people (especially people who don't know the issue) would call for action. Second, in legislative social circles, alcohol is more important. I'm not saying they're drunks, just that they like a beer or two now and then. But they don't really care about guns too much. They live in great neighborhoods, they're the ones in charge so they don't have to worry about tyranny, and I guess they either don't shoot for sport, or don't care about it enough. In many cases, they don't even know their own legislation:
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
|
The rate of gun-related murders has dropped by almost half in the U.S. since the early 1990s, even though more than eight of 10 Americans say otherwise, according to a study by the Pew Research Center.
The report, released amid a nationwide debate over whether to enact new measures to curb firearms violence, shows that gun- related killings peaked in 1993 at seven deaths per 100,000 Americans before descending rapidly to 3.8 deaths per 100,000 by 2000. By 2010, Pew found, the rate had fallen to 3.6 deaths per 100,000 people.
Yet a majority of Americans, 56 percent, say gun crime is higher than it was in 1993, while 26 percent say it’s the same, according to the survey by the Washington-based group. Just 12 percent told Pew the rate was lower.
“Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago,” the study said.
The mass shooting at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school in December boosted support for gun-control legislation, according to another Pew poll, taken in January.
Source
Just another example of how media attention manipulates public perception.
Edit: oops, apparently a repost :/
On May 09 2013 08:18 Nachtwind wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 06:39 mavignon wrote:
I don't mean to come across trollish but the very fact that this subject is mostly (only?) debated in the US and other countries where it is legal to own firearms is quite telling. Because it´s a unique theme. No other country in the world has this (wished?) steady arming of their normal citizen over decades of years in the history of human mankind i can think of.
Can you think of ANY issue where the public is moving towards more freedom, instead of government control? Marijuana legalization is probably the only exception that I can think of.
|
On May 09 2013 12:41 Millitron wrote:
You don't hear calls for alcohol registration, or banning high-capacity alcoholic drinks.
I think its because of two things. First, for whatever reason, the news doesn't mention alcohol. If the news went after alcohol like they do guns, you would see just as dumb legislation get proposed, because lots of people (especially people who don't know the issue) would call for action. Second, in legislative social circles, alcohol is more important. I'm not saying they're drunks, just that they like a beer or two now and then. But they don't really care about guns too much. They live in great neighborhoods, they're the ones in charge so they don't have to worry about tyranny, and I guess they either don't shoot for sport, or don't care about it enough. In many cases, they don't even know their own legislation:
Also, generally the people calling for legislation don't need guns for self defense. They typically have armed security at their disposal. Pretty convenient for them to say the public can't have guns or restricted access to guns when they have personal bodyguards to carry a weapon for them.
Edit: By people calling for gun control I mean Obama and congressmen/women.
|
On May 09 2013 09:30 Nachtwind wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 09:04 mavignon wrote:On May 09 2013 08:18 Nachtwind wrote:On May 09 2013 06:39 mavignon wrote:
I don't mean to come across trollish but the very fact that this subject is mostly (only?) debated in the US and other countries where it is legal to own firearms is quite telling. Because it´s a unique theme. No other country in the world has this (wished?) steady arming of their normal citizen over decades of years in the history of human mankind i can think of. I know that. But my point is that you don't see this kind of debates in France or Germany for example. You don't see people in the streets, debates on TV or editiorials in newspapers saying "We wish we could legally own firearms". And we do have a lot of crime (including armed robberies), we hear as many terrible stories of rape, child abduction, etc. No you don´t understand. You can´t use europe countrys and their views regarding gun property on the us society. Things aren´t that easy.
Take a step back and consider the OP question on a broad level. "Should people be allowed to own guns", in my opinion, has a definite answer, yes or no, whatever countries or societies you live in. It's like asking "Should we have death penalty", the answer must be either yes or no for every society in the world, whatever you think the answer should be.
The fact that American has a strong gun culture is irrelevant to this question. Like France has a strong foie gras culture or Spain has a bullfighting culture is not relevant to the questions: "Is it right to fatten birds" and "Is it right to kill animals for entertainment"
Maybe the pro-guns Americans are right. Maybe the answer to this question is yes. But in this case, all societies must legalize guns. You can't argue that self-defense and protection to government tyranny are basic American rights, but those rights should be denied anywhere else.
Now back to my first point. The fact that this question is debated in the US only and that other societies don't have any doubts is enough of a fact, for me, that people would rather live in a gunless society. But I recognize it's a bit trollish because it is basically child's logic ("if you are the only one who is right and the other 50 kids are wrong, then they are right and you are wrong")
|
On May 09 2013 12:03 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +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. And shooting people is already illegal too. But you don't see people calling for banning high-capacity beer bottles, or beer-cans designed to pour faster. You don't hear any outcry for banning extremely strong alcohol.
Your response, Millitron, was absolutely perfect. Nobody wants to ban high capacity/fast pouring beer cans or cars with a speedometer that reaches 150 because that is entirely illogical for a number of reasons. The only reason people want to ban the equivalent with guns is because they do not understand them. And people are afraid of what they do not understand.
What Shiori said is the epitome of the gun control movement. I could not make a post more illogical than that even if I was trying to poke fun at them.
On May 09 2013 14:18 Rhino85 wrote:
Also, generally the people calling for legislation don't need guns for self defense. They typically have armed security at their disposal. Pretty convenient for them to say the public can't have guns or restricted access to guns when they have personal bodyguards to carry a weapon for them.
Edit: By people calling for gun control I mean Obama and congressmen/women.
Please don't stop there.
---The Journal-News: After posting the names and addresses of gun permit holders and the following public backlash, many employees hired armed security when bloggers responded by posting their names and addresses online.
---Dianne Feinstein: The woman who is probably the most aggressive and powerful gun control advocate in the country admitted to obtaining a (INCREDIBLY rare) California concealed carry permit saying: "if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me."
---Jim Carrey: called gun owners heartless motherfuckers; he is protected by an armed guard.
---Rosie O`Donnel: "You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison." Then her body guard applied for a concealed carry permit.
---Sarah Brady: bought her son a 30-06 rifle and talked about how awesome it felt
---Michael Moore: basically said those who own guns are automatically racist; he has an armed body guard.
---Let us not forget Obama and the rest of the country:
Guns protect our banks
Guns protect our natoin's gold
Guns protect our police
Guns enforce our tax laws
Guns protect our detainees
Guns protect our politicians
Guns protect our politician's children
Guns protect our president
Guns protect our president's children
Gun free zones protect our children
|
On May 09 2013 12:57 AmorphousPhoenix wrote:Show nested quote +The rate of gun-related murders has dropped by almost half in the U.S. since the early 1990s, even though more than eight of 10 Americans say otherwise, according to a study by the Pew Research Center.
The report, released amid a nationwide debate over whether to enact new measures to curb firearms violence, shows that gun- related killings peaked in 1993 at seven deaths per 100,000 Americans before descending rapidly to 3.8 deaths per 100,000 by 2000. By 2010, Pew found, the rate had fallen to 3.6 deaths per 100,000 people.
Yet a majority of Americans, 56 percent, say gun crime is higher than it was in 1993, while 26 percent say it’s the same, according to the survey by the Washington-based group. Just 12 percent told Pew the rate was lower.
“Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago,” the study said.
The mass shooting at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school in December boosted support for gun-control legislation, according to another Pew poll, taken in January. SourceJust another example of how media attention manipulates public perception. Edit: oops, apparently a repost :/ Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 08:18 Nachtwind wrote:On May 09 2013 06:39 mavignon wrote:
I don't mean to come across trollish but the very fact that this subject is mostly (only?) debated in the US and other countries where it is legal to own firearms is quite telling. Because it´s a unique theme. No other country in the world has this (wished?) steady arming of their normal citizen over decades of years in the history of human mankind i can think of. Can you think of ANY issue where the public is moving towards more freedom, instead of government control? Marijuana legalization is probably the only exception that I can think of.
Negative liberty? Marijuana legalization, gay/lesbian rights.
Positive liberty? Minimum wage laws, education reform, healthcare reform.
Your response, Millitron, was absolutely perfect. Nobody wants to ban high capacity/fast pouring beer cans or cars with a speedometer that reaches 150 because that is entirely illogical for a number of reasons. The only reason people want to ban the equivalent with guns is because they do not understand them. And people are afraid of what they do not understand.
If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill other people. It is a tool specifically meant to cause death in other living beings (mostly, and most importantly, in other human beings), whereas cars are made for transportation, alcohol is a beverage, knives have a multitude of primary uses besides killing (and are significantly harder to kill with than guns), etc.
|
On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:
If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant.
I do see the difference. Alcohol and cars are far more dangerous, as are knives if you live in the UK.
On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:
cars are made for transportation, alcohol is a beverage, knives have a multitude of primary uses besides killing
And V-series nerve agents were discovered while developing organophosphate pesticides, but that didn't redeem them. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And guess what, along with inanimate objects lacking "intention" of any kind, arguing intentions is moot considering they change with whoever is in control of said objects.
Edit: whoever, not whomever... D:
|
On May 10 2013 00:17 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:
If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. I do see the difference. Alcohol and cars are far more dangerous, as are knives if you live in the UK. Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:
cars are made for transportation, alcohol is a beverage, knives have a multitude of primary uses besides killing And V-series nerve agents were discovered while developing organophosphate pesticides, but that didn't redeem them. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And guess what, along with inanimate objects lacking "intention" of any kind, arguing intentions is moot considering they change with whoever is in control of said objects. Edit: whoever, not whomever... D:
You're misunderstanding my language. Purpose or intention isn't in the inanimate object; it's merely in what the object can do. A gun's purpose is to kill things because that and target practice are the only things that a gun is good at. A knife's primary purpose is NOT killing because it is merely cutting, and it is a very good tool for numerous things besides killing, whereas a gun is not.
And the danger level of an item? Again, you're misunderstanding the point. What you're pointing out is the fact that an individual is more likely to be injured by alcohol, a car, or a knife (in the U.K.), not that the items are more dangerous. The intrinsic features of these items make a gun far more dangerous and it always will be, and that is the relevant discussion.
|
On May 09 2013 12:03 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +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. And shooting people is already illegal too. But you don't see people calling for banning high-capacity beer bottles, or beer-cans designed to pour faster. You don't hear any outcry for banning extremely strong alcohol.
Alcoholic products undergo pretty close scrutiny, especially new ones. Look at what happened with Four Loko! Then there's absinthe, which was banned in the U.S. until the product was changed into something entirely different. The bans on homemade liquor map pretty closely to potential future bans on 3D printing guns and bullets.
Everclear is also highly regulated and banned in many states.
|
Suppose I found a way to use a nuclear missile as a structure on which I hang my clothes to dry. Would my pointing to this as a legitimate use of a nuclear missile put your mind at ease?
Suppose I wanted to use anthrax powder to lighten the colour of a piece of art. Would this entitle me to possess it?
|
No I am not misunderstanding it, I am questioning its value. Why is "purpose" an argument if it is entirely unrelated to what actually happens. If the intended purpose for a gun is to kill people while the intended purpose of knives is not, then why would knives be more of a threat? There is a disconnect between something's purpose and the results of its use--as we can see with alcohol, cars, knives, bats, computers, pretty much anything. Otherwise, if purpose actually mattered, Ted Kennedy's car would not have killed more people than my guns.
On May 10 2013 00:56 Shiori wrote:
Suppose I found a way to use a nuclear missile as a structure on which I hang my clothes to dry. Would my pointing to this as a legitimate use of a nuclear missile put your mind at ease?
Suppose I wanted to use anthrax powder to lighten the colour of a piece of art. Would this entitle me to possess it?
These cannot be used for argument, as the results of using such objects are completely beyond your control. The opposite is true with everything else we are talking about in this thread. You are in complete control of a gun, of a car, of alcohol until you make the conscious decision to be reckless and/or ignore a golden safety rule. It is then that you should deal with the consequences of the illegal act be it 1st degree manslaughter or 2nd degree murder.
|
On May 10 2013 00:56 -VapidSlug- wrote:
No I am not misunderstanding it, I am questioning its value. Why is "purpose" an argument if it is entirely unrelated to what actually happens. If the intended purpose for a gun is to kill people while the intended purpose of knives is not, then why would knives be more of a threat? There is a disconnect between something's purpose and the results of its use--as we can see with alcohol, cars, knives, bats, computers, pretty much anything. Otherwise, if purpose actually mattered, Ted Kennedy's car would not have killed more people than my guns.
You should be looking at fatalities per incident rather than guns/knives vs overall violent crime. If knives are used more, it stands to reason that there will be more knife-related injuries, but that says nothing about how dangerous knives actually are compared to guns on a case-by-case basis.
I'd be interested to see a study comparing the chances of a fatality in a crime involving a gun versus a knife.
A good parallel would be to look at viral agents with low infectiousness but high mortality.
|
On May 10 2013 01:03 Shiori wrote:
You should be looking at fatalities per incident rather than guns/knives vs overall violent crime. If knives are used more, it stands to reason that there will be more knife-related injuries, but that says nothing about how dangerous knives actually are compared to guns on a case-by-case basis.
I'd be interested to see a study comparing the chances of a fatality in a crime involving a gun versus a knife.
A good parallel would be to look at viral agents with low infectiousness but high mortality.
I would as well; it is probably safe to assume there is one buried in the avalanche of this thread. Time to start digging.
|
On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 12:57 AmorphousPhoenix wrote:The rate of gun-related murders has dropped by almost half in the U.S. since the early 1990s, even though more than eight of 10 Americans say otherwise, according to a study by the Pew Research Center.
The report, released amid a nationwide debate over whether to enact new measures to curb firearms violence, shows that gun- related killings peaked in 1993 at seven deaths per 100,000 Americans before descending rapidly to 3.8 deaths per 100,000 by 2000. By 2010, Pew found, the rate had fallen to 3.6 deaths per 100,000 people.
Yet a majority of Americans, 56 percent, say gun crime is higher than it was in 1993, while 26 percent say it’s the same, according to the survey by the Washington-based group. Just 12 percent told Pew the rate was lower.
“Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago,” the study said.
The mass shooting at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school in December boosted support for gun-control legislation, according to another Pew poll, taken in January. SourceJust another example of how media attention manipulates public perception. Edit: oops, apparently a repost :/ On May 09 2013 08:18 Nachtwind wrote:On May 09 2013 06:39 mavignon wrote:
I don't mean to come across trollish but the very fact that this subject is mostly (only?) debated in the US and other countries where it is legal to own firearms is quite telling. Because it´s a unique theme. No other country in the world has this (wished?) steady arming of their normal citizen over decades of years in the history of human mankind i can think of. Can you think of ANY issue where the public is moving towards more freedom, instead of government control? Marijuana legalization is probably the only exception that I can think of. Negative liberty? Marijuana legalization, gay/lesbian rights. Positive liberty? Minimum wage laws, education reform, healthcare reform. Show nested quote +Your response, Millitron, was absolutely perfect. Nobody wants to ban high capacity/fast pouring beer cans or cars with a speedometer that reaches 150 because that is entirely illogical for a number of reasons. The only reason people want to ban the equivalent with guns is because they do not understand them. And people are afraid of what they do not understand. If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill other people. It is a tool specifically meant to cause death in other living beings (mostly, and most importantly, in other human beings), whereas cars are made for transportation, alcohol is a beverage, knives have a multitude of primary uses besides killing (and are significantly harder to kill with than guns), etc.
I, and many other gun owners have never killed a single thing with a gun. We like to shoot paper or empty soda cans, not people.
Guns are designed to throw a tiny piece of metal at high speeds. What is in front of that piece of metal is not the gun's fault. Alcohol is "designed" to impair judgment and motor skills. If someone does something irresponsible when impaired, it's not the alcohol's fault.
On May 10 2013 00:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 12:03 Millitron wrote: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. And shooting people is already illegal too. But you don't see people calling for banning high-capacity beer bottles, or beer-cans designed to pour faster. You don't hear any outcry for banning extremely strong alcohol. Alcoholic products undergo pretty close scrutiny, especially new ones. Look at what happened with Four Loko! Then there's absinthe, which was banned in the U.S. until the product was changed into something entirely different. The bans on homemade liquor map pretty closely to potential future bans on 3D printing guns and bullets. Everclear is also highly regulated and banned in many states.
Absinthe isn't illegal in the US, and its still pretty much the same as its always been. Sure, it can't have Thujone, but it barely had any to begin with. The bans on homemade liquor have nothing to do with safety, they're there because homemade liquor represents lost tax income.
|
On May 10 2013 01:37 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 09 2013 12:57 AmorphousPhoenix wrote:The rate of gun-related murders has dropped by almost half in the U.S. since the early 1990s, even though more than eight of 10 Americans say otherwise, according to a study by the Pew Research Center.
The report, released amid a nationwide debate over whether to enact new measures to curb firearms violence, shows that gun- related killings peaked in 1993 at seven deaths per 100,000 Americans before descending rapidly to 3.8 deaths per 100,000 by 2000. By 2010, Pew found, the rate had fallen to 3.6 deaths per 100,000 people.
Yet a majority of Americans, 56 percent, say gun crime is higher than it was in 1993, while 26 percent say it’s the same, according to the survey by the Washington-based group. Just 12 percent told Pew the rate was lower.
“Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago,” the study said.
The mass shooting at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school in December boosted support for gun-control legislation, according to another Pew poll, taken in January. SourceJust another example of how media attention manipulates public perception. Edit: oops, apparently a repost :/ On May 09 2013 08:18 Nachtwind wrote:On May 09 2013 06:39 mavignon wrote:
I don't mean to come across trollish but the very fact that this subject is mostly (only?) debated in the US and other countries where it is legal to own firearms is quite telling. Because it´s a unique theme. No other country in the world has this (wished?) steady arming of their normal citizen over decades of years in the history of human mankind i can think of. Can you think of ANY issue where the public is moving towards more freedom, instead of government control? Marijuana legalization is probably the only exception that I can think of. Negative liberty? Marijuana legalization, gay/lesbian rights. Positive liberty? Minimum wage laws, education reform, healthcare reform. Your response, Millitron, was absolutely perfect. Nobody wants to ban high capacity/fast pouring beer cans or cars with a speedometer that reaches 150 because that is entirely illogical for a number of reasons. The only reason people want to ban the equivalent with guns is because they do not understand them. And people are afraid of what they do not understand. If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill other people. It is a tool specifically meant to cause death in other living beings (mostly, and most importantly, in other human beings), whereas cars are made for transportation, alcohol is a beverage, knives have a multitude of primary uses besides killing (and are significantly harder to kill with than guns), etc. I, and many other gun owners have never killed a single thing with a gun. We like to shoot paper or empty soda cans, not people. Guns are designed to throw a tiny piece of metal at high speeds. What is in front of that piece of metal is not the gun's fault. Alcohol is "designed" to impair judgment and motor skills. If someone does something irresponsible when impaired, it's not the alcohol's fault. Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 00:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 09 2013 12:03 Millitron wrote: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. And shooting people is already illegal too. But you don't see people calling for banning high-capacity beer bottles, or beer-cans designed to pour faster. You don't hear any outcry for banning extremely strong alcohol. Alcoholic products undergo pretty close scrutiny, especially new ones. Look at what happened with Four Loko! Then there's absinthe, which was banned in the U.S. until the product was changed into something entirely different. The bans on homemade liquor map pretty closely to potential future bans on 3D printing guns and bullets. Everclear is also highly regulated and banned in many states. Absinthe isn't illegal in the US, and its still pretty much the same as its always been. Sure, it can't have Thujone, but it barely had any to begin with. The bans on homemade liquor have nothing to do with safety, they're there because homemade liquor represents lost tax income.
Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do?
|
On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 01:37 Millitron wrote:On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 09 2013 12:57 AmorphousPhoenix wrote:The rate of gun-related murders has dropped by almost half in the U.S. since the early 1990s, even though more than eight of 10 Americans say otherwise, according to a study by the Pew Research Center.
The report, released amid a nationwide debate over whether to enact new measures to curb firearms violence, shows that gun- related killings peaked in 1993 at seven deaths per 100,000 Americans before descending rapidly to 3.8 deaths per 100,000 by 2000. By 2010, Pew found, the rate had fallen to 3.6 deaths per 100,000 people.
Yet a majority of Americans, 56 percent, say gun crime is higher than it was in 1993, while 26 percent say it’s the same, according to the survey by the Washington-based group. Just 12 percent told Pew the rate was lower.
“Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago,” the study said.
The mass shooting at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school in December boosted support for gun-control legislation, according to another Pew poll, taken in January. SourceJust another example of how media attention manipulates public perception. Edit: oops, apparently a repost :/ On May 09 2013 08:18 Nachtwind wrote:On May 09 2013 06:39 mavignon wrote:
I don't mean to come across trollish but the very fact that this subject is mostly (only?) debated in the US and other countries where it is legal to own firearms is quite telling. Because it´s a unique theme. No other country in the world has this (wished?) steady arming of their normal citizen over decades of years in the history of human mankind i can think of. Can you think of ANY issue where the public is moving towards more freedom, instead of government control? Marijuana legalization is probably the only exception that I can think of. Negative liberty? Marijuana legalization, gay/lesbian rights. Positive liberty? Minimum wage laws, education reform, healthcare reform. Your response, Millitron, was absolutely perfect. Nobody wants to ban high capacity/fast pouring beer cans or cars with a speedometer that reaches 150 because that is entirely illogical for a number of reasons. The only reason people want to ban the equivalent with guns is because they do not understand them. And people are afraid of what they do not understand. If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill other people. It is a tool specifically meant to cause death in other living beings (mostly, and most importantly, in other human beings), whereas cars are made for transportation, alcohol is a beverage, knives have a multitude of primary uses besides killing (and are significantly harder to kill with than guns), etc. I, and many other gun owners have never killed a single thing with a gun. We like to shoot paper or empty soda cans, not people. Guns are designed to throw a tiny piece of metal at high speeds. What is in front of that piece of metal is not the gun's fault. Alcohol is "designed" to impair judgment and motor skills. If someone does something irresponsible when impaired, it's not the alcohol's fault. On May 10 2013 00:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 09 2013 12:03 Millitron wrote: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. And shooting people is already illegal too. But you don't see people calling for banning high-capacity beer bottles, or beer-cans designed to pour faster. You don't hear any outcry for banning extremely strong alcohol. Alcoholic products undergo pretty close scrutiny, especially new ones. Look at what happened with Four Loko! Then there's absinthe, which was banned in the U.S. until the product was changed into something entirely different. The bans on homemade liquor map pretty closely to potential future bans on 3D printing guns and bullets. Everclear is also highly regulated and banned in many states. Absinthe isn't illegal in the US, and its still pretty much the same as its always been. Sure, it can't have Thujone, but it barely had any to begin with. The bans on homemade liquor have nothing to do with safety, they're there because homemade liquor represents lost tax income. Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do?
They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that. Banning Thujone is like banning food with cholera in it. It's preventing companies from making bad products. If Colt had made a gun that was known for accidentally blowing up in your hand when you fired it, I'd expect that to be banned, or at least recalled until it was fixed.
I'm against the regulations on homemade liquor, assuming its either not to be sold, or isn't poisonous.
|
On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do?
There is no ban on homemade liquor, it is just a power-struggling tax-collector scheme. It's pretty stupid to be honest, my university lab couldn't even order ethanol (which we needed free of impurities) without paying the substantial liquor taxes.
|
On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 01:37 Millitron wrote:On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 09 2013 12:57 AmorphousPhoenix wrote:The rate of gun-related murders has dropped by almost half in the U.S. since the early 1990s, even though more than eight of 10 Americans say otherwise, according to a study by the Pew Research Center.
The report, released amid a nationwide debate over whether to enact new measures to curb firearms violence, shows that gun- related killings peaked in 1993 at seven deaths per 100,000 Americans before descending rapidly to 3.8 deaths per 100,000 by 2000. By 2010, Pew found, the rate had fallen to 3.6 deaths per 100,000 people.
Yet a majority of Americans, 56 percent, say gun crime is higher than it was in 1993, while 26 percent say it’s the same, according to the survey by the Washington-based group. Just 12 percent told Pew the rate was lower.
“Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago,” the study said.
The mass shooting at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school in December boosted support for gun-control legislation, according to another Pew poll, taken in January. SourceJust another example of how media attention manipulates public perception. Edit: oops, apparently a repost :/ On May 09 2013 08:18 Nachtwind wrote:On May 09 2013 06:39 mavignon wrote:
I don't mean to come across trollish but the very fact that this subject is mostly (only?) debated in the US and other countries where it is legal to own firearms is quite telling. Because it´s a unique theme. No other country in the world has this (wished?) steady arming of their normal citizen over decades of years in the history of human mankind i can think of. Can you think of ANY issue where the public is moving towards more freedom, instead of government control? Marijuana legalization is probably the only exception that I can think of. Negative liberty? Marijuana legalization, gay/lesbian rights. Positive liberty? Minimum wage laws, education reform, healthcare reform. Your response, Millitron, was absolutely perfect. Nobody wants to ban high capacity/fast pouring beer cans or cars with a speedometer that reaches 150 because that is entirely illogical for a number of reasons. The only reason people want to ban the equivalent with guns is because they do not understand them. And people are afraid of what they do not understand. If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill other people. It is a tool specifically meant to cause death in other living beings (mostly, and most importantly, in other human beings), whereas cars are made for transportation, alcohol is a beverage, knives have a multitude of primary uses besides killing (and are significantly harder to kill with than guns), etc. I, and many other gun owners have never killed a single thing with a gun. We like to shoot paper or empty soda cans, not people. Guns are designed to throw a tiny piece of metal at high speeds. What is in front of that piece of metal is not the gun's fault. Alcohol is "designed" to impair judgment and motor skills. If someone does something irresponsible when impaired, it's not the alcohol's fault. On May 10 2013 00:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 09 2013 12:03 Millitron wrote: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. And shooting people is already illegal too. But you don't see people calling for banning high-capacity beer bottles, or beer-cans designed to pour faster. You don't hear any outcry for banning extremely strong alcohol. Alcoholic products undergo pretty close scrutiny, especially new ones. Look at what happened with Four Loko! Then there's absinthe, which was banned in the U.S. until the product was changed into something entirely different. The bans on homemade liquor map pretty closely to potential future bans on 3D printing guns and bullets. Everclear is also highly regulated and banned in many states. Absinthe isn't illegal in the US, and its still pretty much the same as its always been. Sure, it can't have Thujone, but it barely had any to begin with. The bans on homemade liquor have nothing to do with safety, they're there because homemade liquor represents lost tax income. Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do? They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that. Banning Thujone is like banning food with cholera in it. It's preventing companies from making bad products. If Colt had made a gun that was known for accidentally blowing up in your hand when you fired it, I'd expect that to be banned, or at least recalled until it was fixed. I'm against the regulations on homemade liquor, assuming its either not to be sold, or isn't poisonous.
Sorry for offtopic
+ Show Spoiler +
most countries in the european union allow since 1998 the sales of absinth with thujon(with a max value though). Even switzerland since 2005. That´s because studies have found out that the thujone value in those liquors(today/past) is/was so small it don´t have an effect. The "bad effects" one knows from literature is due to bad alcohols used back then scientist says.
Cheers. =)
|
On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 01:37 Millitron wrote:On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 09 2013 12:57 AmorphousPhoenix wrote:The rate of gun-related murders has dropped by almost half in the U.S. since the early 1990s, even though more than eight of 10 Americans say otherwise, according to a study by the Pew Research Center.
The report, released amid a nationwide debate over whether to enact new measures to curb firearms violence, shows that gun- related killings peaked in 1993 at seven deaths per 100,000 Americans before descending rapidly to 3.8 deaths per 100,000 by 2000. By 2010, Pew found, the rate had fallen to 3.6 deaths per 100,000 people.
Yet a majority of Americans, 56 percent, say gun crime is higher than it was in 1993, while 26 percent say it’s the same, according to the survey by the Washington-based group. Just 12 percent told Pew the rate was lower.
“Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago,” the study said.
The mass shooting at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school in December boosted support for gun-control legislation, according to another Pew poll, taken in January. SourceJust another example of how media attention manipulates public perception. Edit: oops, apparently a repost :/ On May 09 2013 08:18 Nachtwind wrote:On May 09 2013 06:39 mavignon wrote:
I don't mean to come across trollish but the very fact that this subject is mostly (only?) debated in the US and other countries where it is legal to own firearms is quite telling. Because it´s a unique theme. No other country in the world has this (wished?) steady arming of their normal citizen over decades of years in the history of human mankind i can think of. Can you think of ANY issue where the public is moving towards more freedom, instead of government control? Marijuana legalization is probably the only exception that I can think of. Negative liberty? Marijuana legalization, gay/lesbian rights. Positive liberty? Minimum wage laws, education reform, healthcare reform. Your response, Millitron, was absolutely perfect. Nobody wants to ban high capacity/fast pouring beer cans or cars with a speedometer that reaches 150 because that is entirely illogical for a number of reasons. The only reason people want to ban the equivalent with guns is because they do not understand them. And people are afraid of what they do not understand. If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill other people. It is a tool specifically meant to cause death in other living beings (mostly, and most importantly, in other human beings), whereas cars are made for transportation, alcohol is a beverage, knives have a multitude of primary uses besides killing (and are significantly harder to kill with than guns), etc. I, and many other gun owners have never killed a single thing with a gun. We like to shoot paper or empty soda cans, not people. Guns are designed to throw a tiny piece of metal at high speeds. What is in front of that piece of metal is not the gun's fault. Alcohol is "designed" to impair judgment and motor skills. If someone does something irresponsible when impaired, it's not the alcohol's fault. On May 10 2013 00:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 09 2013 12:03 Millitron wrote: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. And shooting people is already illegal too. But you don't see people calling for banning high-capacity beer bottles, or beer-cans designed to pour faster. You don't hear any outcry for banning extremely strong alcohol. Alcoholic products undergo pretty close scrutiny, especially new ones. Look at what happened with Four Loko! Then there's absinthe, which was banned in the U.S. until the product was changed into something entirely different. The bans on homemade liquor map pretty closely to potential future bans on 3D printing guns and bullets. Everclear is also highly regulated and banned in many states. Absinthe isn't illegal in the US, and its still pretty much the same as its always been. Sure, it can't have Thujone, but it barely had any to begin with. The bans on homemade liquor have nothing to do with safety, they're there because homemade liquor represents lost tax income. Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do? They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that.
"This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution."
How's that for nonsense?
First off, the bill doesn't criminalize transfer. It criminalizes transfer without a background check.
2. OH NO, MY FRIENDS NEIGHBORS AND MANY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GETTING VICTIMIZED(think of the children!)
3. Selling guns without a background check is a fundamental right?
|
On May 10 2013 02:35 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 01:37 Millitron wrote:On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 09 2013 12:57 AmorphousPhoenix wrote:The rate of gun-related murders has dropped by almost half in the U.S. since the early 1990s, even though more than eight of 10 Americans say otherwise, according to a study by the Pew Research Center.
The report, released amid a nationwide debate over whether to enact new measures to curb firearms violence, shows that gun- related killings peaked in 1993 at seven deaths per 100,000 Americans before descending rapidly to 3.8 deaths per 100,000 by 2000. By 2010, Pew found, the rate had fallen to 3.6 deaths per 100,000 people.
Yet a majority of Americans, 56 percent, say gun crime is higher than it was in 1993, while 26 percent say it’s the same, according to the survey by the Washington-based group. Just 12 percent told Pew the rate was lower.
“Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago,” the study said.
The mass shooting at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school in December boosted support for gun-control legislation, according to another Pew poll, taken in January. SourceJust another example of how media attention manipulates public perception. Edit: oops, apparently a repost :/ On May 09 2013 08:18 Nachtwind wrote:On May 09 2013 06:39 mavignon wrote:
I don't mean to come across trollish but the very fact that this subject is mostly (only?) debated in the US and other countries where it is legal to own firearms is quite telling. Because it´s a unique theme. No other country in the world has this (wished?) steady arming of their normal citizen over decades of years in the history of human mankind i can think of. Can you think of ANY issue where the public is moving towards more freedom, instead of government control? Marijuana legalization is probably the only exception that I can think of. Negative liberty? Marijuana legalization, gay/lesbian rights. Positive liberty? Minimum wage laws, education reform, healthcare reform. Your response, Millitron, was absolutely perfect. Nobody wants to ban high capacity/fast pouring beer cans or cars with a speedometer that reaches 150 because that is entirely illogical for a number of reasons. The only reason people want to ban the equivalent with guns is because they do not understand them. And people are afraid of what they do not understand. If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill other people. It is a tool specifically meant to cause death in other living beings (mostly, and most importantly, in other human beings), whereas cars are made for transportation, alcohol is a beverage, knives have a multitude of primary uses besides killing (and are significantly harder to kill with than guns), etc. I, and many other gun owners have never killed a single thing with a gun. We like to shoot paper or empty soda cans, not people. Guns are designed to throw a tiny piece of metal at high speeds. What is in front of that piece of metal is not the gun's fault. Alcohol is "designed" to impair judgment and motor skills. If someone does something irresponsible when impaired, it's not the alcohol's fault. On May 10 2013 00:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On May 09 2013 12:03 Millitron wrote: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. And shooting people is already illegal too. But you don't see people calling for banning high-capacity beer bottles, or beer-cans designed to pour faster. You don't hear any outcry for banning extremely strong alcohol. Alcoholic products undergo pretty close scrutiny, especially new ones. Look at what happened with Four Loko! Then there's absinthe, which was banned in the U.S. until the product was changed into something entirely different. The bans on homemade liquor map pretty closely to potential future bans on 3D printing guns and bullets. Everclear is also highly regulated and banned in many states. Absinthe isn't illegal in the US, and its still pretty much the same as its always been. Sure, it can't have Thujone, but it barely had any to begin with. The bans on homemade liquor have nothing to do with safety, they're there because homemade liquor represents lost tax income. Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do? They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that. "This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution." How's that for nonsense? First off, the bill doesn't criminalize transfer. It criminalizes transfer without a background check. 2. OH NO, MY FRIENDS NEIGHBORS AND MANY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GETTING VICTIMIZED(think of the children!) 3. Selling guns without a background check is a fundamental right?
But, but, but, my uncle has a criminal record and I REALLY wanna give him my gun!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
