|
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 June 13 2016 18:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 12:40 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 12:38 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2016 11:55 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 06:09 Simberto wrote:
Well, american gun culture is just utterly alien to me, and a lot of other europeans. Feel free to explain it better. So far i have heard "It is really not like your impression of it".
So i will write my impression now, and you can feel free to correct it:
I am ignoring the obvious reason ones here (Hunting, defense against animals in wilderness) that are not really something most people object and which are also quite common in europe.
Reasons to own guns are usually named as one of the two:
(1) Recreational
(2) Self-Defense
(3) Protection against the evil government
Recreational means shooting stuff for fun and possibly roasting bacon on rifles.
Self-Defense does not actually appear to work as far as i know, as you are far more likely to be in danger if you own a gun than if you don't.
Protection against the government is just silly.
The big cons are:
(a) A lot of guys get intentionally shot.
(b) a lot of people get accidentally shot.
The reason for (a) is that if there are more guns around, more crimes involve guns, and a crime involving guns has a much higher chance of getting people shot. The reason for (b) is similar. If there are more guns around, it is much more likely that a five-year old will shoot his sister.
To me, the cons just outweigh the pros massively. Everyone is more safe with fewer guns around, and i don't see what is gained if you have more guns around. Please explain this american gun culture in terms a european can understand, because to me it just seems that a bunch of people are incredibly irrational in a way that makes no sense whatsoever to me and that i simply can not comprehend. (Though to be honest you do have Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, so maybe that is indeed that reason) think about how absurdly dangerous it is driving a car at freeway speeds, yet no one hesitates to do it even with small children in the car. Which is why we're all grateful that the automobile industry lobby never came around to the idea that it would be against freedom to force people to have a license before they are allowed to drive, by the way. that's irrelevant to the fact that more people still die as a result from cars than die from firearms (aside from suicide). You can't just compare guns to cars because of high death tolls; the primary purpose of a car- transportation of people and goods- is a necessary day-to-day priority for people. We also have an immense amount of safety measures and penalties in place to minimize dangers and harm. On the other hand, the purpose of a gun is for shooting things. In a car accident, there is a failure of some sort, be it human or mechanical; on the other hand, when a gun goes off and harms someone, it's serving its primary purpose.
all the things you've listed only serve to justify the death of people caused by cars. is faster transportation so necessary that you're ok with children and teenagers dying in car accidents? more people are dying because cars exist, factoring in the primary purpose only serves to qualify death, don't you agree?
|
On June 14 2016 07:24 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 07:17 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2016 07:07 oneofthem wrote:
^even heller makes room for 'reasonable regulation' and there is no universe in which terror watchlist based restriction isn't reasonable. I'm just saying it's a little more complicated than the comparison with flights would suggest. Furthermore if you wish to make a list to deny people a right then it'll need to be a pretty transparent and accountable list with a process for verifying the people on it and contesting mistakes. Basically it can't be anything like the current list. the problem with the list is that it does not go far enough to cover ongoing investigations. fbi should have more discretionary authority to deny people weapons. there is no transparency because of the ongoing investigation concern. it doesn't even have to be 'deny' outright, just run it through the hoops of the security checks already existing in immigration and let that dude wait a few years while the fbi investigates more. there are many ways to skirt a court ban on absolute restrictions.
Is that something the FBI wants? From what I've seen they investigate the person, build a case, and either arrest them when they buy weapons legally, or do a sting where an undercover sells them illegal weapons.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
a case to prosecute is different from risk mitigation measures like denying weapons/explosive access.
|
But I asked you if the FBI themselves wanted that kind of expansion or it's just something you made up.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
why is that relevant? it is a policy question.
for an agency already overstretched on resources, you expect them to be happy about a resource intensive and inefficient investigation order instead of just cutting off the firearm with a easy disqualifier like, you are a terrorist suspect?
|
On June 14 2016 09:36 dontforgetosmile wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2016 18:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 13 2016 12:40 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 12:38 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2016 11:55 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 06:09 Simberto wrote:
Well, american gun culture is just utterly alien to me, and a lot of other europeans. Feel free to explain it better. So far i have heard "It is really not like your impression of it".
So i will write my impression now, and you can feel free to correct it:
I am ignoring the obvious reason ones here (Hunting, defense against animals in wilderness) that are not really something most people object and which are also quite common in europe.
Reasons to own guns are usually named as one of the two:
(1) Recreational
(2) Self-Defense
(3) Protection against the evil government
Recreational means shooting stuff for fun and possibly roasting bacon on rifles.
Self-Defense does not actually appear to work as far as i know, as you are far more likely to be in danger if you own a gun than if you don't.
Protection against the government is just silly.
The big cons are:
(a) A lot of guys get intentionally shot.
(b) a lot of people get accidentally shot.
The reason for (a) is that if there are more guns around, more crimes involve guns, and a crime involving guns has a much higher chance of getting people shot. The reason for (b) is similar. If there are more guns around, it is much more likely that a five-year old will shoot his sister.
To me, the cons just outweigh the pros massively. Everyone is more safe with fewer guns around, and i don't see what is gained if you have more guns around. Please explain this american gun culture in terms a european can understand, because to me it just seems that a bunch of people are incredibly irrational in a way that makes no sense whatsoever to me and that i simply can not comprehend. (Though to be honest you do have Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, so maybe that is indeed that reason) think about how absurdly dangerous it is driving a car at freeway speeds, yet no one hesitates to do it even with small children in the car. Which is why we're all grateful that the automobile industry lobby never came around to the idea that it would be against freedom to force people to have a license before they are allowed to drive, by the way. that's irrelevant to the fact that more people still die as a result from cars than die from firearms (aside from suicide). You can't just compare guns to cars because of high death tolls; the primary purpose of a car- transportation of people and goods- is a necessary day-to-day priority for people. We also have an immense amount of safety measures and penalties in place to minimize dangers and harm. On the other hand, the purpose of a gun is for shooting things. In a car accident, there is a failure of some sort, be it human or mechanical; on the other hand, when a gun goes off and harms someone, it's serving its primary purpose. all the things you've listed only serve to justify the death of people caused by cars. is faster transportation so necessary that you're ok with children and teenagers dying in car accidents? more people are dying because cars exist, factoring in the primary purpose only serves to qualify death, don't you agree?
I don't think you read my post. The primary purpose of a car (or any mode of transportation) isn't to kill people. The fact that there are daily dangers involved is exactly why we have an insane number of precautions and regulations and safeguards, both in who drives and how safe our cars are. It would be amazing if gun safety was taken anywhere near as seriously as car safety.
|
On June 14 2016 11:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 09:36 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 18:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 13 2016 12:40 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 12:38 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2016 11:55 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 06:09 Simberto wrote:
Well, american gun culture is just utterly alien to me, and a lot of other europeans. Feel free to explain it better. So far i have heard "It is really not like your impression of it".
So i will write my impression now, and you can feel free to correct it:
I am ignoring the obvious reason ones here (Hunting, defense against animals in wilderness) that are not really something most people object and which are also quite common in europe.
Reasons to own guns are usually named as one of the two:
(1) Recreational
(2) Self-Defense
(3) Protection against the evil government
Recreational means shooting stuff for fun and possibly roasting bacon on rifles.
Self-Defense does not actually appear to work as far as i know, as you are far more likely to be in danger if you own a gun than if you don't.
Protection against the government is just silly.
The big cons are:
(a) A lot of guys get intentionally shot.
(b) a lot of people get accidentally shot.
The reason for (a) is that if there are more guns around, more crimes involve guns, and a crime involving guns has a much higher chance of getting people shot. The reason for (b) is similar. If there are more guns around, it is much more likely that a five-year old will shoot his sister.
To me, the cons just outweigh the pros massively. Everyone is more safe with fewer guns around, and i don't see what is gained if you have more guns around. Please explain this american gun culture in terms a european can understand, because to me it just seems that a bunch of people are incredibly irrational in a way that makes no sense whatsoever to me and that i simply can not comprehend. (Though to be honest you do have Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, so maybe that is indeed that reason) think about how absurdly dangerous it is driving a car at freeway speeds, yet no one hesitates to do it even with small children in the car. Which is why we're all grateful that the automobile industry lobby never came around to the idea that it would be against freedom to force people to have a license before they are allowed to drive, by the way. that's irrelevant to the fact that more people still die as a result from cars than die from firearms (aside from suicide). You can't just compare guns to cars because of high death tolls; the primary purpose of a car- transportation of people and goods- is a necessary day-to-day priority for people. We also have an immense amount of safety measures and penalties in place to minimize dangers and harm. On the other hand, the purpose of a gun is for shooting things. In a car accident, there is a failure of some sort, be it human or mechanical; on the other hand, when a gun goes off and harms someone, it's serving its primary purpose. all the things you've listed only serve to justify the death of people caused by cars. is faster transportation so necessary that you're ok with children and teenagers dying in car accidents? more people are dying because cars exist, factoring in the primary purpose only serves to qualify death, don't you agree? I don't think you read my post. The primary purpose of a car (or any mode of transportation) isn't to kill people. The fact that there are daily dangers involved is exactly why we have an insane number of precautions and regulations and safeguards, both in who drives and how safe our cars are. It would be amazing if gun safety was taken anywhere near as seriously as car safety.
i don't think you understand that the purpose of a car, nor the fact that there are currently regulations applied to ownership of one, have any effect on the amount of people dead as a result.
you're really grasping at straws here. i'm just trying to show you that you are completely fine with the amount of people dying from car use. you are fine with this in spite of the fact that this number is higher than the number of people killed involving gun violence.
why is it ok for more people to die in one way and not ok for less people to die in another?
|
We're always trying to make cars safer. And one day sooner than later it will be illegal to drive your car, everyone will have to have a self driving car on public roads. Done correctly that brings the number of driving deaths to virtually zero and that's all a very good thing.
|
On June 14 2016 11:57 dontforgetosmile wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 11:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 14 2016 09:36 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 18:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 13 2016 12:40 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 12:38 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2016 11:55 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 06:09 Simberto wrote:
Well, american gun culture is just utterly alien to me, and a lot of other europeans. Feel free to explain it better. So far i have heard "It is really not like your impression of it".
So i will write my impression now, and you can feel free to correct it:
I am ignoring the obvious reason ones here (Hunting, defense against animals in wilderness) that are not really something most people object and which are also quite common in europe.
Reasons to own guns are usually named as one of the two:
(1) Recreational
(2) Self-Defense
(3) Protection against the evil government
Recreational means shooting stuff for fun and possibly roasting bacon on rifles.
Self-Defense does not actually appear to work as far as i know, as you are far more likely to be in danger if you own a gun than if you don't.
Protection against the government is just silly.
The big cons are:
(a) A lot of guys get intentionally shot.
(b) a lot of people get accidentally shot.
The reason for (a) is that if there are more guns around, more crimes involve guns, and a crime involving guns has a much higher chance of getting people shot. The reason for (b) is similar. If there are more guns around, it is much more likely that a five-year old will shoot his sister.
To me, the cons just outweigh the pros massively. Everyone is more safe with fewer guns around, and i don't see what is gained if you have more guns around. Please explain this american gun culture in terms a european can understand, because to me it just seems that a bunch of people are incredibly irrational in a way that makes no sense whatsoever to me and that i simply can not comprehend. (Though to be honest you do have Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, so maybe that is indeed that reason) think about how absurdly dangerous it is driving a car at freeway speeds, yet no one hesitates to do it even with small children in the car. Which is why we're all grateful that the automobile industry lobby never came around to the idea that it would be against freedom to force people to have a license before they are allowed to drive, by the way. that's irrelevant to the fact that more people still die as a result from cars than die from firearms (aside from suicide). You can't just compare guns to cars because of high death tolls; the primary purpose of a car- transportation of people and goods- is a necessary day-to-day priority for people. We also have an immense amount of safety measures and penalties in place to minimize dangers and harm. On the other hand, the purpose of a gun is for shooting things. In a car accident, there is a failure of some sort, be it human or mechanical; on the other hand, when a gun goes off and harms someone, it's serving its primary purpose. all the things you've listed only serve to justify the death of people caused by cars. is faster transportation so necessary that you're ok with children and teenagers dying in car accidents? more people are dying because cars exist, factoring in the primary purpose only serves to qualify death, don't you agree? I don't think you read my post. The primary purpose of a car (or any mode of transportation) isn't to kill people. The fact that there are daily dangers involved is exactly why we have an insane number of precautions and regulations and safeguards, both in who drives and how safe our cars are. It would be amazing if gun safety was taken anywhere near as seriously as car safety. i don't think you understand that the purpose of a car, nor the fact that there are currently regulations applied to ownership of one, have any effect on the amount of people dead as a result.
??? They absolutely do. You really don't think there would be more car accidents if we removed restrictions on who could drive? Letting kids and blind people drive wouldn't increase the death toll?
you're really grasping at straws here. i'm just trying to show you that you are completely fine with the amount of people dying from car use.
No I'm not, hence my relief at how there are plenty of driving regulations and car safety features... which is exactly why I wish guns were taken just as seriously too.
why is it ok for more people to die in one way and not ok for less people to die in another?
What? I never said it was okay for people to die in car accidents. At this point, I feel like you might be trolling me, because you're not reading anything I write and you're accusing me of wanting exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. So... good night.
|
On June 14 2016 12:06 OuchyDathurts wrote:
We're always trying to make cars safer. And one day sooner than later it will be illegal to drive your car, everyone will have to have a self driving car on public roads. Done correctly that brings the number of driving deaths to virtually zero and that's all a very good thing.
Yup. Dunno how dontforgettosmile doesn't understand that lol
|
On June 14 2016 12:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What? I never said it was okay for people to die in car accidents. At this point, I feel like you might be trolling me, because you're not reading anything I write and you're accusing me of wanting exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. So... good night.
You can't just compare guns to cars because of high death tolls; the primary purpose of a car- transportation of people and goods- is a necessary day-to-day priority for people. We also have an immense amount of safety measures and penalties in place to minimize dangers and harm. On the other hand, the purpose of a gun is for shooting things. In a car accident, there is a failure of some sort, be it human or mechanical; on the other hand, when a gun goes off and harms someone, it's serving its primary purpose.
I don't think you read my post. The primary purpose of a car (or any mode of transportation) isn't to kill people.
you said these things not me. i'm just repeating you to yourself.
you continue to argue about car deaths like they are completely acceptable because regulations exist, even though despite these regulations, there are more car accident deaths than gun violence deaths), the concept of "it will get better" does not change the fact that it is objectively worse now, yet there is no thread in general entitled "if you're seeing this it's because another accident happened".
i get it, it's an accepted standard because we all grew up around cars, saw them used safely and legally, and accepted the risks of using them. i'm just trying to get you to see that fact and see how gun owners may feel the same way.
|
|
|
On June 14 2016 11:57 dontforgetosmile wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 11:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 14 2016 09:36 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 18:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 13 2016 12:40 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 12:38 Nebuchad wrote:On June 13 2016 11:55 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 13 2016 06:09 Simberto wrote:
Well, american gun culture is just utterly alien to me, and a lot of other europeans. Feel free to explain it better. So far i have heard "It is really not like your impression of it".
So i will write my impression now, and you can feel free to correct it:
I am ignoring the obvious reason ones here (Hunting, defense against animals in wilderness) that are not really something most people object and which are also quite common in europe.
Reasons to own guns are usually named as one of the two:
(1) Recreational
(2) Self-Defense
(3) Protection against the evil government
Recreational means shooting stuff for fun and possibly roasting bacon on rifles.
Self-Defense does not actually appear to work as far as i know, as you are far more likely to be in danger if you own a gun than if you don't.
Protection against the government is just silly.
The big cons are:
(a) A lot of guys get intentionally shot.
(b) a lot of people get accidentally shot.
The reason for (a) is that if there are more guns around, more crimes involve guns, and a crime involving guns has a much higher chance of getting people shot. The reason for (b) is similar. If there are more guns around, it is much more likely that a five-year old will shoot his sister.
To me, the cons just outweigh the pros massively. Everyone is more safe with fewer guns around, and i don't see what is gained if you have more guns around. Please explain this american gun culture in terms a european can understand, because to me it just seems that a bunch of people are incredibly irrational in a way that makes no sense whatsoever to me and that i simply can not comprehend. (Though to be honest you do have Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, so maybe that is indeed that reason) think about how absurdly dangerous it is driving a car at freeway speeds, yet no one hesitates to do it even with small children in the car. Which is why we're all grateful that the automobile industry lobby never came around to the idea that it would be against freedom to force people to have a license before they are allowed to drive, by the way. that's irrelevant to the fact that more people still die as a result from cars than die from firearms (aside from suicide). You can't just compare guns to cars because of high death tolls; the primary purpose of a car- transportation of people and goods- is a necessary day-to-day priority for people. We also have an immense amount of safety measures and penalties in place to minimize dangers and harm. On the other hand, the purpose of a gun is for shooting things. In a car accident, there is a failure of some sort, be it human or mechanical; on the other hand, when a gun goes off and harms someone, it's serving its primary purpose. all the things you've listed only serve to justify the death of people caused by cars. is faster transportation so necessary that you're ok with children and teenagers dying in car accidents? more people are dying because cars exist, factoring in the primary purpose only serves to qualify death, don't you agree? I don't think you read my post. The primary purpose of a car (or any mode of transportation) isn't to kill people. The fact that there are daily dangers involved is exactly why we have an insane number of precautions and regulations and safeguards, both in who drives and how safe our cars are. It would be amazing if gun safety was taken anywhere near as seriously as car safety. i don't think you understand that the purpose of a car, nor the fact that there are currently regulations applied to ownership of one, have any effect on the amount of people dead as a result. you're really grasping at straws here. i'm just trying to show you that you are completely fine with the amount of people dying from car use. you are fine with this in spite of the fact that this number is higher than the number of people killed involving gun violence. why is it ok for more people to die in one way and not ok for less people to die in another?
wat
better safety regulations and improved technology (often stemming from such regulations) have reduced car accidents per capita and death rates steadily over the past half-century. Just seat belt regulation alone is enough to reduce car deaths; this study suggests that during the first full year after enforcement of seatbelt laws, fatality rates dropped 21% in primary law states while only dropping 7 percent in secondary law states. For people under 21 the difference was even more stark, 24% vs 3%.
So your assertion that regulations on cars somehow don't have an effect on the amount of people who die from car accidents is simply objectively wrong.
|
On June 14 2016 12:53 dontforgetosmile wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 12:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What? I never said it was okay for people to die in car accidents. At this point, I feel like you might be trolling me, because you're not reading anything I write and you're accusing me of wanting exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. So... good night. Show nested quote +You can't just compare guns to cars because of high death tolls; the primary purpose of a car- transportation of people and goods- is a necessary day-to-day priority for people. We also have an immense amount of safety measures and penalties in place to minimize dangers and harm. On the other hand, the purpose of a gun is for shooting things. In a car accident, there is a failure of some sort, be it human or mechanical; on the other hand, when a gun goes off and harms someone, it's serving its primary purpose. Show nested quote +I don't think you read my post. The primary purpose of a car (or any mode of transportation) isn't to kill people. you said these things not me. i'm just repeating you to yourself. you continue to argue about car deaths like they are completely acceptable because regulations exist, even though despite these regulations, there are more car accident deaths than gun violence deaths), the concept of "it will get better" does not change the fact that it is objectively worse now, yet there is no thread in general entitled "if you're seeing this it's because another accident happened". i get it, it's an accepted standard because we all grew up around cars, saw them used safely and legally, and accepted the risks of using them. i'm just trying to get you to see that fact and see how gun owners may feel the same way.
I think the jist of the argument has more to do with the fact that the benefits of cars are massive, if not absolutely ridiculously astronomical. By comparison, AR15's are fun toys which also happen to be potentially disastrously deadly.
It doesn't really compare at all. Cars are a tradeoff. You get amazing benefits that translates to massive wealth for the entire population of a country, but you also get the deaths, the pollution, etc. With semi-automatic rifles, you only get drawbacks, and the benefits border on irrelevant.
There's also the other angle (I don't know if you were making that argument) that regulation for cars haven't entirely stopped car deaths. However statistics strongly suggest that the prevalence of death and serious injuries has been going down since we've heavily regulated driving. No alcohol, no speeding, have to get driver's license, etc. The goal is not to eliminate deaths related to firearms in the US, that's ridiculous. What you want is to reduce them.
Note: I'm insanely tired and I can't be bothered to check my post for typos or incoherence. Going to sleep. Cheers
|
On June 14 2016 12:53 dontforgetosmile wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 12:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What? I never said it was okay for people to die in car accidents. At this point, I feel like you might be trolling me, because you're not reading anything I write and you're accusing me of wanting exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. So... good night. Show nested quote +You can't just compare guns to cars because of high death tolls; the primary purpose of a car- transportation of people and goods- is a necessary day-to-day priority for people. We also have an immense amount of safety measures and penalties in place to minimize dangers and harm. On the other hand, the purpose of a gun is for shooting things. In a car accident, there is a failure of some sort, be it human or mechanical; on the other hand, when a gun goes off and harms someone, it's serving its primary purpose. Show nested quote +I don't think you read my post. The primary purpose of a car (or any mode of transportation) isn't to kill people. you said these things not me. i'm just repeating you to yourself. you continue to argue about car deaths like they are completely acceptable because regulations exist, even though despite these regulations, there are more car accident deaths than gun violence deaths), the concept of "it will get better" does not change the fact that it is objectively worse now, yet there is no thread in general entitled "if you're seeing this it's because another accident happened". i get it, it's an accepted standard because we all grew up around cars, saw them used safely and legally, and accepted the risks of using them. i'm just trying to get you to see that fact and see how gun owners may feel the same way.
I get your point, the point trying to be made to you is about how we go about it. We found out that speed and intoxication caused a significant number of accidents so we made rules to reduce deaths around those causes.
Where I think this argument breaks down is that the left isn't appropriately looking at what the causes of gun violence and then acting on reducing those factors, the right is accurately pointing that out until the left does try to get at a real problem then they prevent it yelling about the second amendment or spending.
Again (and this should be getting more and more obvious), it's because the whole point is to keep fighting about it, not to do anything real to stop it. It's hard to believe Democrats in the senate (more importantly, their advisers) are still as clueless about guns as they sound every time they talk about regulations, if they aren't intentionally giving Republicans red meat to point at and say "SEE! They have no idea what they are trying to regulate" they are far too incompetent to be trusted to "write" the legislation anyway.
|
On June 14 2016 13:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 12:53 dontforgetosmile wrote:On June 14 2016 12:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What? I never said it was okay for people to die in car accidents. At this point, I feel like you might be trolling me, because you're not reading anything I write and you're accusing me of wanting exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. So... good night. You can't just compare guns to cars because of high death tolls; the primary purpose of a car- transportation of people and goods- is a necessary day-to-day priority for people. We also have an immense amount of safety measures and penalties in place to minimize dangers and harm. On the other hand, the purpose of a gun is for shooting things. In a car accident, there is a failure of some sort, be it human or mechanical; on the other hand, when a gun goes off and harms someone, it's serving its primary purpose. I don't think you read my post. The primary purpose of a car (or any mode of transportation) isn't to kill people. you said these things not me. i'm just repeating you to yourself. you continue to argue about car deaths like they are completely acceptable because regulations exist, even though despite these regulations, there are more car accident deaths than gun violence deaths), the concept of "it will get better" does not change the fact that it is objectively worse now, yet there is no thread in general entitled "if you're seeing this it's because another accident happened". i get it, it's an accepted standard because we all grew up around cars, saw them used safely and legally, and accepted the risks of using them. i'm just trying to get you to see that fact and see how gun owners may feel the same way. I get your point, the point trying to be made to you is about how we go about it. We found out that speed and intoxication caused a significant number of accidents so we made rules to reduce deaths around those causes. Where I think this argument breaks down is that the left isn't appropriately looking at what the causes of gun violence and then acting on reducing those factors, the right is accurately pointing that out until the left does try to get at a real problem then they prevent it yelling about the second amendment or spending. Again (and this should be getting more and more obvious), it's because the whole point is to keep fighting about it, not to do anything real to stop it. It's hard to believe Democrats in the senate (more importantly, their advisers) are still as clueless about guns as they sound every time they talk about regulations, if they aren't intentionally giving Republicans red meat to point at and say "SEE! They have no idea what they are trying to regulate" they are far too incompetent to be trusted to "write" the legislation anyway.
not sure how you come to this conclusion.
Which party is the one that keeps defunding programs like Medicare, Medicaid, etc.? Which party is the one that opposes ACA? Which party is the one that refuses to accept that poor people are humans and deserve a safety net and opportunities to escape poverty?
I could keep going. The socioeconomic causes of gun violence such as poverty, lack of education, and lack of social mobility are all problems that the Democrats have been attempting to address, while being completely stonewalled by the increasingly hostile corporate shill conservatives that comprise the Republican party.
|
On June 14 2016 10:52 oneofthem wrote:
why is that relevant? it is a policy question.
for an agency already overstretched on resources, you expect them to be happy about a resource intensive and inefficient investigation order instead of just cutting off the firearm with a easy disqualifier like, you are a terrorist suspect?
The FBI should be positioned to have insight into the effect of the FBI having more power to suspend people's right to buy guns. Are you saying they would obviously want it because it's easier than having to investigate people and do actual police work? That's weak, I want to know the right way to do it. In order for this to work, there would have to be a list of people that were considered too low a risk to continue investigating, but high enough a risk that if you denied legal guns to the entire group, you would stop a significant number of attacks (or else what's the point). But if the number of attacks you objectively could stop was high enough, why weren't these people risky enough to have open investigations?
Some things do just come from nowhere. How big do you estimate this class of people is that would get put on a secret list by an intelligence agency, without their knowledge, and have to spend forever in court trying to find answers and then somehow exonerate themselves to restore a their rights? Around 13,000 people, like the no-fly list, or around 400,000 people, like all terror watchlists?
As I tried to explain earlier, if you stop people from buying guns legally, they also then do it under the radar, which I assume the FBI doesn't want unless it means the people are buying from undercovers. What I want is law enforcement agencies to liaise with each other more about these types of cases, including more things being tracked automatically in other agencies' records.
|
On June 14 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote:
I would also point out that the CDC is not allowed to collect data on gun violence and deaths resulting from guns. They are allowed to do that for airbags or crossbows. But not guns. And the NRA lobbied for that. When people attack the gun lobby, it is policies like that they are attacking. Preventing the government from collecting basic information.
I think that the NRA is being excessively stupid when it comes to these matters and that gun lobbies need to be taken care of.
The USA has piss poor regulation when it comes to firearms, unlike in Germany or France (see Zatic's posts). In Florida it goes beyond bad regulation, literally "any lunatic can obtain an assault rifle". That's how bad it is!
The USA has a gun problem for sure and it's a pretty bad one, mostly because the regulation is absolute bollocks.
Should there be a blanket ban? For sure there should NOT be. The USA should start out with basic regulation on dangerous firearms in the first place. Proper regulation is the answer here, this is good for both gun-owners and everyone else who is put in danger when lunatics obtain guns. Gun lobbies stand in the way of safe and proper regulation and that needs to be addressed. That should realistically make things safer in the USA really. At the end of the day you should still be able to own and use a firearm, it's just more regulated. That should be fine.
The 2nd Amendment is an obsolete piece of shit which has nothing to do in a developed countries. People should have some "gun rights" but certainly NOT for the reasons given in the 2nd Amendment, lol.
|
On June 14 2016 16:41 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2016 06:25 Plansix wrote:
I would also point out that the CDC is not allowed to collect data on gun violence and deaths resulting from guns. They are allowed to do that for airbags or crossbows. But not guns. And the NRA lobbied for that. When people attack the gun lobby, it is policies like that they are attacking. Preventing the government from collecting basic information. I think that the NRA is being excessively stupid when it comes to these matters and that gun lobbies need to be taken care of. The USA has piss poor regulation when it comes to firearms, unlike in Germany or France (see Zatic's posts). In Florida it goes beyond bad regulation, literally "any lunatic can obtain an assault rifle". That's how bad it is! The USA has a gun problem for sure and it's a pretty bad one, mostly because the regulation is absolute bollocks. Should there be a blanket ban? For sure there should NOT be. The USA should start out with basic regulation on dangerous firearms in the first place. Proper regulation is the answer here, this is good for both gun-owners and everyone else who is put in danger when lunatics obtain guns. Gun lobbies stand in the way of safe and proper regulation and that needs to be addressed. That should realistically make things safer in the USA really. At the end of the day you should still be able to own and use a firearm, it's just more regulated. That should be fine. The 2nd Amendment is an obsolete piece of shit which has nothing to do in a developed countries. People should have some "gun rights" but certainly NOT for the reasons given in the 2nd Amendment, lol.
Perhaps French people should mind their own Frenchie business, or have you all ready forgotten your own Islamic fueled gun rampage? Hmmm, yeah, the enlightened Europeans! Europe has a million more problems than the US, and for some reason EU folks really love to put their .02 cents in, in all the US politics threads, but most of us American's could really care less how the EU handles their politics or their governing visions. The French outlived their usefulness in 1780.
User was warned for this post
|
Yeah except I spent 10 years of my life in the USA and that country is basically also what I would consider my homeland. Sorry?
You can talk badly all you want, to me you're just putting your head in the ground and refusing to face the problem head on. The regulation when it comes to firearms in the USA is insufficient. There should be no reason you can obtain a military-grade weapon without any background checks, licenses, what have you. In Florida there is literally no regulation, you don't even need a license.
My own stance is much more conservative than most people's, I fully oppose blanket bans on firearms, but I also fully oppose complete deregulation. Firearms are dangerous and need to be treated with more respect than what they have in the USA.
Flying is also an inherently dangerous activity and they don't let anyone be a pilot just because they've got the dough: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/planes-unscheduled-landing-after-passenger-8178039
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
