|
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 December 05 2015 00:08 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 22:14 evilfatsh1t wrote:
just because a gun isnt being used to kill something, doesnt remove the original purpose of having a gun.
guns are supposed to inflict damage. full stop
off the top of my head there is nothing else that is legal where its original purpose is to inflict damage.
you can argue people 'train' with guns or use it for recreational purposes, but what positive impact does it actually have on society?
what are you training for? why are you even trying to improve your shooting skills.
the argument that alcohol, cars, and a whole lot of other shit should be banned if you ban guns is ludicrous. everything else has a positive purpose in society, its just that they have terrible side effects in some cases. guns literally have 0 positive purpose. they were created to kill shit what is the positive purpose of alcohol or recreational drugs in society? is alcohol a required part of life? cars help you get around and life would be severely impacted without access to cars. can you really say the same about alcohol?
Yeah I can confidently say that. Leave the booze alone, some comparisons made in this thread are so absurd they could sport in satire shows.
|
What I dont understand is why USA still argue thet they need to have around 1 gun per citezen, which is absurd compared to other western countries.
Guns get stolen, gun accidents happen, guns are used when people get angry... the sheer quantity in itself is a huge risk factor, and gun-murder, accidents and suicide rates in the US are astronomical because of it.
A friend of mine got shot in his foot falling with his father's hunting shotgun, blasting a huge hole through his leg, and causing years of surgery and pain.
Having a gun does not make your home safer. Please check how many are actually saved from armed burglerers/murderers compared to random accidents like the one of my friend. Also, is shooting a burglerer justifiable in the first place?
The mass shootings are the top of the iceberg.
More guns=more deaths. It is undeniable.
|
The problem with the debate is that people frame it in the in this binary option of “zero guns vs Guns for ALL.” This framing completely disregards the numerous countries that have firearms and manage to not have mass shootings and excessive gun violence. So the problem isn’t gun ownership, but people like to frame it that way because its polarizes the issue to the point where no action is taken.
|
On December 05 2015 00:12 Slydie wrote:
What I dont understand is why USA still argue thet they need to have around 1 gun per citezen, which is absurd compared to other western countries.
Guns get stolen, gun accidents happen, guns are used when people get angry... the sheer quantity in itself is a huge risk factor, and gun-murder, accidents and suicide rates in the US are astronomical because of it.
A friend of mine got shot in his foot falling with his father's hunting shotgun, blasting a huge hole through his leg, and causing years of surgery and pain.
Having a gun does not make your home safer. Please check how many are actually saved from armed burglerers/murderers compared to random accidents like the one of my friend. Also, is shooting a burglerer justifiable in the firat place?
The mass shootings are the top of the iceberg.
More guns=more deaths. It is undeniable.
Yeah but why should we care? As outsiders it is simply not our problem. I only get slightly annoyed when these incidents routinesly get called tragedies. Tragedies are things you don't see coming and are somehow unavoidable. The mass shooting thing is no tragedy but a logical consequence of the collective political will.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On December 05 2015 00:12 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 00:08 ahswtini wrote:On December 04 2015 22:14 evilfatsh1t wrote:
just because a gun isnt being used to kill something, doesnt remove the original purpose of having a gun.
guns are supposed to inflict damage. full stop
off the top of my head there is nothing else that is legal where its original purpose is to inflict damage.
you can argue people 'train' with guns or use it for recreational purposes, but what positive impact does it actually have on society?
what are you training for? why are you even trying to improve your shooting skills.
the argument that alcohol, cars, and a whole lot of other shit should be banned if you ban guns is ludicrous. everything else has a positive purpose in society, its just that they have terrible side effects in some cases. guns literally have 0 positive purpose. they were created to kill shit what is the positive purpose of alcohol or recreational drugs in society? is alcohol a required part of life? cars help you get around and life would be severely impacted without access to cars. can you really say the same about alcohol? Yeah I can confidently say that. Leave the booze alone, some comparisons made in this thread are so absurd they could sport in satire shows.
i dont understand though. alcohol and drugs cause way more deaths and health problems than guns. please name the positive impacts of alcohol and drugs on society.
|
On December 05 2015 00:17 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 00:12 AngryMag wrote:On December 05 2015 00:08 ahswtini wrote:On December 04 2015 22:14 evilfatsh1t wrote:
just because a gun isnt being used to kill something, doesnt remove the original purpose of having a gun.
guns are supposed to inflict damage. full stop
off the top of my head there is nothing else that is legal where its original purpose is to inflict damage.
you can argue people 'train' with guns or use it for recreational purposes, but what positive impact does it actually have on society?
what are you training for? why are you even trying to improve your shooting skills.
the argument that alcohol, cars, and a whole lot of other shit should be banned if you ban guns is ludicrous. everything else has a positive purpose in society, its just that they have terrible side effects in some cases. guns literally have 0 positive purpose. they were created to kill shit what is the positive purpose of alcohol or recreational drugs in society? is alcohol a required part of life? cars help you get around and life would be severely impacted without access to cars. can you really say the same about alcohol? Yeah I can confidently say that. Leave the booze alone, some comparisons made in this thread are so absurd they could sport in satire shows. i dont understand though. alcohol and drugs cause way more deaths and health problems than guns. please name the positive impacts of alcohol and drugs on society.
Escapism from a shit reality. Releasing pressure build up by said shit reality. In our societies the poorer classes are drinking and abusing drugs the most. It is a way to flee from reality, like a movie. Take the drugs away and (this includes legal ones like booze) organized crime will grow, cohesion in societies will be further reduced and the existence of shittier but necessary jobs in our societies will be put into question.
|
On December 05 2015 00:06 Plansix wrote:
The core problem right now is that the government is prohibited from doing any research on the subject, including studying the trends that lead to these shootings. We had somewhere around 300+ mass shootings this year nationwide and the government cannot compare and contrast that data to find a solution.
Its impossible to find solutions if your prohibited from studying the problem.
What precisely is this prohibition? I just don't know the first thing about it. Is it a law? Is it a ruling from the judicial branch? Is it a presidential order? Is it a de facto prohibition resulting from lack of funding or follow-up? What exact wording does the prohibition have? Does it even have a wording?
I'm very interested, because this is the first I've ever heard about it.
On December 05 2015 00:21 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 00:17 ahswtini wrote:On December 05 2015 00:12 AngryMag wrote:On December 05 2015 00:08 ahswtini wrote:On December 04 2015 22:14 evilfatsh1t wrote:
just because a gun isnt being used to kill something, doesnt remove the original purpose of having a gun.
guns are supposed to inflict damage. full stop
off the top of my head there is nothing else that is legal where its original purpose is to inflict damage.
you can argue people 'train' with guns or use it for recreational purposes, but what positive impact does it actually have on society?
what are you training for? why are you even trying to improve your shooting skills.
the argument that alcohol, cars, and a whole lot of other shit should be banned if you ban guns is ludicrous. everything else has a positive purpose in society, its just that they have terrible side effects in some cases. guns literally have 0 positive purpose. they were created to kill shit what is the positive purpose of alcohol or recreational drugs in society? is alcohol a required part of life? cars help you get around and life would be severely impacted without access to cars. can you really say the same about alcohol? Yeah I can confidently say that. Leave the booze alone, some comparisons made in this thread are so absurd they could sport in satire shows. i dont understand though. alcohol and drugs cause way more deaths and health problems than guns. please name the positive impacts of alcohol and drugs on society. Escapism from a shit reality. Releasing pressure build up by said shit reality. In our societies the poorer classes are drinking and abusing drugs the most. It is a way to flee from reality, like a movie. Take the drugs away and (this includes legal ones like booze) organized crime will grow, cohesion in societies will be further reduced and the existence of shittier but necessary jobs in our societies will be put into question.
I'd have to echo this. Drugs are essentially a kind of free-form medication. Feeling anxious in a social setting? Drink a few beers and assimilate more easily. Feeling stressed or anxious? Smoke some weed and relax. Need to get up early in the morning? Drink some coffee and get to it. Gotta tough it out through the rest of your shift? Smoke a cig and bear with it. Results obviously vary among people, just as the effects of doctor-prescribed medication vary. Even more obviously, drugs can be abused just as medicine can be abused, and in a lot of cases the abuse of drugs is more severe because there's no doctor oversight (related: medication prescribed by careless doctors is often abused). It's generally difficult to see the positive impact of these drugs because they shape how people operate on a day-to-day basis, and thus are incredibly subtle. Would Bob from accounting be able to handle his life the way he does if he couldn't go drink at the local bar after work? Would Doug the trucker be able to drive safely in the mornings without his coffee? We don't generally ask these questions, so it's hard to say. It's very easy to demonize drugs, and they do for sure cause a ton of problems, but we also need to be open to their benefits.
|
On December 05 2015 00:27 Acritter wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 00:06 Plansix wrote:
The core problem right now is that the government is prohibited from doing any research on the subject, including studying the trends that lead to these shootings. We had somewhere around 300+ mass shootings this year nationwide and the government cannot compare and contrast that data to find a solution.
Its impossible to find solutions if your prohibited from studying the problem.
What precisely is this prohibition? I just don't know the first thing about it. Is it a law? Is it a ruling from the judicial branch? Is it a presidential order? Is it a de facto prohibition resulting from lack of funding or follow-up? What exact wording does the prohibition have? Does it even have a wording? I'm very interested, because this is the first I've ever heard about it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/
In 1996 the gun lobby pushed through a bill banning the CDC(the government agency that does all research into harmful anything, including drunk driving and work place accidents) from doing ANY research into violence with fire arms. They can study knives and bows, but not guns. 20 years later, we still have little data on gun violence in the US because no one can force local governments to provide information the way the Federal Government could.
It is the gun lobby removing any real data driven discussion from the equation. Its not fighting a specific law or refuting in interpenetration of data, they have prevented the government from studying the effects of the thing only the government can regulate. And if you dig deeper, you will find that they have systematically put rules in place preventing the ATF from preforming background checks and researching the behavior of gun sellers. They even stopped the terrorist watch list from being used to prevent a gun sale.
To be hyperbolic, the gun lobby wants you to buy a gun to protect yourself from the gun they sold to a suspected terrorist a couple weeks earlier.
|
On December 05 2015 00:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 00:27 Acritter wrote:On December 05 2015 00:06 Plansix wrote:
The core problem right now is that the government is prohibited from doing any research on the subject, including studying the trends that lead to these shootings. We had somewhere around 300+ mass shootings this year nationwide and the government cannot compare and contrast that data to find a solution.
Its impossible to find solutions if your prohibited from studying the problem.
What precisely is this prohibition? I just don't know the first thing about it. Is it a law? Is it a ruling from the judicial branch? Is it a presidential order? Is it a de facto prohibition resulting from lack of funding or follow-up? What exact wording does the prohibition have? Does it even have a wording? I'm very interested, because this is the first I've ever heard about it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/In 1996 the gun lobby pushed through a bill banning the CDC(the government agency that does all research into harmful anything, including drunk driving and work place accidents) from doing ANY research into violence with fire arms. They can study knives and bows, but not guns. 20 years later, we still have little data on gun violence in the US because no one can force local governments to provide information the way the Federal Government could. It is the gun lobby removing any real data driven discussion from the equation. Its not fighting a specific law or refuting in interpenetration of data, they have prevented the government from studying the effects of the thing only the government can regulate. And if you dig deeper, you will find that they have systematically put rules in place preventing the ATF from preforming background checks and researching the behavior of gun sellers. They even stopped the terrorist watch list from being used to prevent a gun sale. To be hyperbolic, the gun lobby wants you to buy a gun to protect yourself from the gun they sold to a suspected terrorist a couple weeks earlier.
Ah, that's fascinating. So it's a more-or-less de facto ban thanks to lack of funding influenced by a powerful special interest group. Just as a quick point of reference, the article there says Obama lifted the ban, which means that it was never an outright law. The president can't just remove laws like that (let's leave discussion of executive overreach out of this for now). It was, as far as I can tell, agency policy followed by pointed lack of funding. As far as accomplishing this end of information restriction goes, it seems to be a rather elegant and effective method.
I definitely agree that even just by principle alone this kind of political maneuvering is unacceptable. I'm not certain that any kind of studies should ever be outlawed... perhaps one could make a case for banning studies of races on the grounds that an oppressive authority could use it to justify a type of apartheid? But it doesn't seem like something as egregious as that is on the line here. At the same time, I wonder if it's possible to research indiscriminate mass violence without necessarily linking it to gun usage. I think that question boils down to whether you think one of the several incidents within the past month are better linked to the Boston Marathon bombing or to, say, the Valentine's Day Massacre. But, of course, if the general atmosphere prevents such studies, then it would seem clear that the freedom of research is the most important short-term goal.
Still, I think that regardless of this, we're all perfectly justified in asking ourselves before any data comes in of why we're concerned with these incidents, and I stand by my claim that it is senseless to consider loss of life to be a valid primary motivation. I certainly remain interested even without being overly concerned with the mortality involved.
|
The main reason I am concerned is that there are other countries with similar gun laws that do not have the level of gun violence we have. Canada has similar laws to ours, but manages mass shootings. So there is clearly some key piece of information missing from my understanding.
Are laws not being enforced? Are there loop holes in the system that allow guns to get into the hands of criminals? Why do we not hear about arrests of strawman purchases? Is there an exploit in the system that each of these mass shooters used to acquire a gun?
And it angers me that we cannot collect this information. That the congress refuses to fund any research because guns sales are a record highs and all the gun manufactures lobby to keep the research from happening. They just don’t want the discussion and debate because they are afraid it will cut into their profits.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On December 05 2015 00:21 AngryMag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 00:17 ahswtini wrote:On December 05 2015 00:12 AngryMag wrote:On December 05 2015 00:08 ahswtini wrote:On December 04 2015 22:14 evilfatsh1t wrote:
just because a gun isnt being used to kill something, doesnt remove the original purpose of having a gun.
guns are supposed to inflict damage. full stop
off the top of my head there is nothing else that is legal where its original purpose is to inflict damage.
you can argue people 'train' with guns or use it for recreational purposes, but what positive impact does it actually have on society?
what are you training for? why are you even trying to improve your shooting skills.
the argument that alcohol, cars, and a whole lot of other shit should be banned if you ban guns is ludicrous. everything else has a positive purpose in society, its just that they have terrible side effects in some cases. guns literally have 0 positive purpose. they were created to kill shit what is the positive purpose of alcohol or recreational drugs in society? is alcohol a required part of life? cars help you get around and life would be severely impacted without access to cars. can you really say the same about alcohol? Yeah I can confidently say that. Leave the booze alone, some comparisons made in this thread are so absurd they could sport in satire shows. i dont understand though. alcohol and drugs cause way more deaths and health problems than guns. please name the positive impacts of alcohol and drugs on society. Escapism from a shit reality. Releasing pressure build up by said shit reality. In our societies the poorer classes are drinking and abusing drugs the most. It is a way to flee from reality, like a movie. Take the drugs away and (this includes legal ones like booze) organized crime will grow, cohesion in societies will be further reduced and the existence of shittier but necessary jobs in our societies will be put into question.
indeed i accept that those are all legitimately beneficial. my issue is when people say that guns are only designed to kill, there are no positive benefits to society to having them. an afternoon at the range can be just as therapeutic as an afternoon spent fishing, or doing any other activity. and even if the only use of guns is to kill people with, the reality of the world is that there are some bad people in society that need to be killed.
|
On December 05 2015 00:17 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 00:12 AngryMag wrote:On December 05 2015 00:08 ahswtini wrote:On December 04 2015 22:14 evilfatsh1t wrote:
just because a gun isnt being used to kill something, doesnt remove the original purpose of having a gun.
guns are supposed to inflict damage. full stop
off the top of my head there is nothing else that is legal where its original purpose is to inflict damage.
you can argue people 'train' with guns or use it for recreational purposes, but what positive impact does it actually have on society?
what are you training for? why are you even trying to improve your shooting skills.
the argument that alcohol, cars, and a whole lot of other shit should be banned if you ban guns is ludicrous. everything else has a positive purpose in society, its just that they have terrible side effects in some cases. guns literally have 0 positive purpose. they were created to kill shit what is the positive purpose of alcohol or recreational drugs in society? is alcohol a required part of life? cars help you get around and life would be severely impacted without access to cars. can you really say the same about alcohol? Yeah I can confidently say that. Leave the booze alone, some comparisons made in this thread are so absurd they could sport in satire shows. i dont understand though. alcohol and drugs cause way more deaths and health problems than guns. please name the positive impacts of alcohol and drugs on society.
You are correct.
How about we treat guns like we treat drugs and booze.
Age limits.
Require doctor's approval
No limits on ID checks.
Police able to arrest you for doing it publicly
Not allowed to be using them in public
Heavily taxed
Sellers requires licenses
Both misusers and sellers are punished
Only allowed to be used within very restricted rule sets
In fact, lets treat Guns like we treat cars.
Require a license that has to be regularly renewed.
Require registration
Require insurance
Can be revoked by state at any time for any reason
Can be impounded by state for even the slightest misuse
Heavily regulated
Requires the government to be informed the moment you buy or sell it
Age limits
Proficiency tests
Police allowed to question your use or misuse of item
Ticketable offense
Only allowed in certain parts of the state
Heck, it would be a BIG change in US policy if we treated guns like we do cars.
|
On December 04 2015 16:19 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2015 15:43 oBlade wrote:]
The US has a homicide rate of around 3.8 compared to a world rate of a little over 6. It's a rate only 2-3x that of Canada's. But that's homocide rate. If it's firearm related death rate, that jumps up to 10.5 per 100000 people. And that was data from 2013, so it could well be that it's either risen, fallen or hasn't changed at all, but that's not the point. The point is that it's higher than other Western countries and that this is seemingly reflected by the loose gun culture living in the US. Ofcourse that's only first glance and has alot more texture attached to it, but it's definitely a good indicator I'd say. And the world rate of 6 is taking into account countries that are far less stable than the US, so yes, good job US, you're just a tiny bit better than the average on intentional killing numbers. Saying it's only 2-3x the rate of Canada isn't really helping, since one could argue that the culture basically doubles/triples the amount of deaths from a gun. Sure it's good to put it in perspective, but one should try to aim for it being as low as possible and not try to make the multiplicator compared to another number as low as possible.
One rate or another may have fallen or risen since 2013, but it is trending downwards.
About 2/3 of the "firearm related death rate" is suicides, were you aware of that?
I'm saying the homicide rate is only 2-3x that of say, Canada or Finland because it's true, what do you mean "helping." Yes, the homicide rate is higher than certain small democratic countries. But it's not 100x worse or whatever people think when they look at this issue hysterically. Despite having half the world's guns, the USA's homicide rate is clearly below the world average... I don't see how that's something to dismisss. There are some notable countries with stricter gun control, or all countries have fewer guns than the US of course, like Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, and Russia, that have homicide rates between like 10 and 30.
|
Aren't tazers legal in many states/countries or smth? Pepper spray even more so I don't understand really this self defense thing.
Or are you actually planning to kill people? Why else would you carry tool to kill people with you?
You really think people don't have spontanous moments of aggression when they have a gun with them?
Owning guns for collection is legitimate but this self defense thing is like from 1800 or little kids fantasy.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On December 05 2015 01:42 Ryndika wrote:
Aren't tazers legal in many states/countries or smth? Pepper spray even more so I don't understand really this self defense thing.
Or are you actually planning to kill people? Why else would you carry tool to kill people with you?
You really think people don't have spontanous moments of aggression when they have a gun with them?
Owning guns for collection is legitimate but this self defense thing is like from 1800 or little kids fantasy.
if spontaneous moments of aggression involving a gun were a relevant thing, how many more shootings would there be, given how many interactions between people there are every hour of the day? you think shootouts erupt every time someone gets cut off in traffic? or you bump into someone in the street? if anything, people who carry firearms are much more likely to try to deescalate and escape from a confrontation.
if you think using guns for self defence is a thing of the past or a figment of fantasy, you're just willfully ignorant. you don't have to search for very long to find examples where guns saved lives. most incidents where a gun prevented an attack aren't even reported.
|
On December 05 2015 00:17 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 00:12 AngryMag wrote:On December 05 2015 00:08 ahswtini wrote:On December 04 2015 22:14 evilfatsh1t wrote:
just because a gun isnt being used to kill something, doesnt remove the original purpose of having a gun.
guns are supposed to inflict damage. full stop
off the top of my head there is nothing else that is legal where its original purpose is to inflict damage.
you can argue people 'train' with guns or use it for recreational purposes, but what positive impact does it actually have on society?
what are you training for? why are you even trying to improve your shooting skills.
the argument that alcohol, cars, and a whole lot of other shit should be banned if you ban guns is ludicrous. everything else has a positive purpose in society, its just that they have terrible side effects in some cases. guns literally have 0 positive purpose. they were created to kill shit what is the positive purpose of alcohol or recreational drugs in society? is alcohol a required part of life? cars help you get around and life would be severely impacted without access to cars. can you really say the same about alcohol? Yeah I can confidently say that. Leave the booze alone, some comparisons made in this thread are so absurd they could sport in satire shows. i dont understand though. alcohol and drugs cause way more deaths and health problems than guns. please name the positive impacts of alcohol and drugs on society.
10 bucks says you're not a school teacher.
|
On December 05 2015 01:50 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 01:42 Ryndika wrote:
Aren't tazers legal in many states/countries or smth? Pepper spray even more so I don't understand really this self defense thing.
Or are you actually planning to kill people? Why else would you carry tool to kill people with you?
You really think people don't have spontanous moments of aggression when they have a gun with them?
Owning guns for collection is legitimate but this self defense thing is like from 1800 or little kids fantasy. if spontaneous moments of aggression involving a gun were a relevant thing, how many more shootings would there be, given how many interactions between people there are every hour of the day? you think shootouts erupt every time someone gets cut off in traffic? or you bump into someone in the street? if anything, people who carry firearms are much more likely to try to deescalate and escape from a confrontation. if you think using guns for self defence is a thing of the past or a figment of fantasy, you're just willfully ignorant. you don't have to search for very long to find examples where guns saved lives. most incidents where a gun prevented an attack aren't even reported.
Are you really arguing that guns save more lives than take them? Fine.
|
On December 05 2015 01:50 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 01:42 Ryndika wrote:
Aren't tazers legal in many states/countries or smth? Pepper spray even more so I don't understand really this self defense thing.
Or are you actually planning to kill people? Why else would you carry tool to kill people with you?
You really think people don't have spontanous moments of aggression when they have a gun with them?
Owning guns for collection is legitimate but this self defense thing is like from 1800 or little kids fantasy. if spontaneous moments of aggression involving a gun were a relevant thing, how many more shootings would there be, given how many interactions between people there are every hour of the day? you think shootouts erupt every time someone gets cut off in traffic? or you bump into someone in the street? if anything, people who carry firearms are much more likely to try to deescalate and escape from a confrontation.
Why? And what evidence do you have of this?
Also, it's important to note that escalation with a gun is far deadlier than escalation without a gun. The average fistfight isn't going to be nearly as violent as the average gun draw.
|
I like the idea of guns in our society. Maybe I'm currently unhappy with the current trend to very socialist by the NDP party where I live, but I believe people should be entitled to more freedoms.
I think it's universally agreed that more guns will lead to more homicides, ceteris paribus. That said, I think it's a freedom that people should have. I don't like that in a case someone tries to assault me, however unlikely it may be, my only course of action is to try to run away, or get beat up, and hope that the legal system punishes them, and rewards me for damages. Sadly, as long as there's no serious injury, I won't get compensated for being mistreated in ways that are not allowed in the universal human rights.
I think that a better education system and slightly better regulation would fix a lot of problems in the US. I dislike the trend of more things being controlled, or monitored by the government. With advancing technology, there will be less and less privacy, and less freedom of expression... I want to make sure that people's rights are respected, even if it's at the expense of wellness to our society.
We could have sensors in our cars that track our eye movements, and communicate the info to the government if there's distracted driving. I think things like this infringe human rights, and even still, this technology will be start being implemented in certain professions. In the same way, people should have a fundamental right to protect themselves, regardless of how unlikely danger might be.
That said, I think the research ban is silly.
|
On December 05 2015 03:33 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I like the idea of guns in our society. Maybe I'm currently unhappy with the current trend to very socialist by the NDP party where I live, but I believe people should be entitled to more freedoms.
I think it's universally agreed that more guns will lead to more homicides, ceteris paribus. That said, I think it's a freedom that people should have. I don't like that in a case someone tries to assault me, however unlikely it may be, my only course of action is to try to run away, or get beat up, and hope that the legal system punishes them, and rewards me for damages. Sadly, as long as there's no serious injury, I won't get compensated for being mistreated in ways that are not allowed in the universal human rights.
I think that a better education system and slightly better regulation would fix a lot of problems in the US. I dislike the trend of more things being controlled, or monitored by the government. With advancing technology, there will be less and less privacy, and less freedom of expression... I want to make sure that people's rights are respected, even if it's at the expense of wellness to our society.
We could have sensors in our cars that track our eye movements, and communicate the info to the government if there's distracted driving. I think things like this infringe human rights, and even still, this technology will be start being implemented in certain professions. In the same way, people should have a fundamental right to protect themselves, regardless of how unlikely danger might be.
That said, I think the research ban is silly.
Just realize something here: you just admitted to having developed a strongly held legal/political perspective on gun rights when a very important source of information, the sort that would almost certainly play figuratively into a well established factual basis for such a perspective, is severely limited via the current de facto prohibition on gun rights public health research in the most gun-violent 1st world nation on the planet. High minded talk of rights linked with borderline conspiracy theory-esque analogies referencing smart car eye sensors, as an overall justification for individual freedom-heavy gun control, seems fairly susceptible to the plain faced truth that countries with gun control at least marginally more strict than the US suffer less violent crimes that are less severe in their damage to the social fabric. Furthermore, the interests who fight the hardest in favor of weak gun control here in the US happen to be very wealthy and entirely responsible for the overall lack of good data on the matter.
That all seems problematic to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
