Non-IT News Thread
-
@Dashrender said:
I suppose what Scott is saying those who want and feel the need to carry guns is the same as the NSAs need to gather all of your information in case you go rouge.
Not exactly the same but yes, overall. The NSA, unnecessary military action overseas, carrying weapons - they all sound like things that protect us on the surface but all of them increase the overall risk by making violence more likely to happen.
-
@Dashrender said:
The problem I have is that gun violence is so low compared to the other ways people die why are we bothering with it before solving those other issues first!
Because it is not utilitarian or supporting things in other way. What else could we fix so easily and have it be such a clear win?
-
@Dashrender said:
I suppose another argument will be that we kinda need cars in our daily lives to do what we do... we don't need pistols and assault rifles to do our daily jobs (except for the 0.001% or less who do).
Exactly. But I'll be the first to say (and have) that public transportation should be invested in far more heavily as should self driving cars. Cars are sadly needed, I doubt that you can find a reasonable way around this, but replacing them should absolutely be mandated. At least replacing them as we know them. Oil burning, man-driven vehicles are a bad way to get people around safely.
-
@Dashrender said:
For example, more people die in car accidents, why haven't we banned cars, or at least mandated other protections to save more lives.... I'll tell you why - because of money and because guns are sensational. When someone goes on a shooting spree, they can typically single handedly (missing from FF dictionary) kill 10+ people quickly - cars rarely do this.
Well we haven't banned guns at all, there is just about zero regulations around them. So no banning is happening anywhere at the moment. Cars have many mandated protections. They are used so heavily by so many people that there is little way to make them not a major killer. But we use them continuously and the safety rating is pretty amazing considering that.
Also, in nearly all cases, people that get killed by cars are in cars - meaning that they are essentially optional and only people who opt to use them are the ones in danger. If only the people holding guns were the ones that 99% of the time got shot I think no one would have a problem with guns either. It's that guns far too often shoot people without guns. You don't "opt into the risk" of being shot like you "opt into the risk of a car accident."
Cars may or may not be optional in America, that's another discussion, but if they are optional, then the risk is optional, if they are not optional then there is no way to ban them.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Outside of very small or very dull (dinner) knives, why would we want people in public with knives either? Why do we desire a weaponized public?
If we lived in a war zone, I would totally understand. But we aren't in Syria or Nigeria.
I desire a weaponized public beause the public needs to be able to defend themselves from criminals that are weaponized. Just like I believe that the US should have an arsenal and military because other countries have arsenals of weapons and military.
It doesn't matter if you take away and melt down every gun, knife, fork, spork, and any other object that is sharp and pointy, anybody can go out and turn a tree branch into a sharp and pointy object.
-
@dafyre said:
I desire a weaponized public beause the public needs to be able to defend themselves from criminals that are weaponized. Just like I believe that the US should have an arsenal and military because other countries have arsenals of weapons and military.
So, just to be clear with what you are saying: as you've not disputed the stats, you are saying that you'd rather than the public better able to defend itself against more violence and have more violent crime overall than to have a less defensible public with less violence so that the defense isn't needed?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
So right now if I'm in public and I see someone with a gun - hidden, brandishing, waiving about, looking like a terrorist, etc. - I have no right to complain and no reason to raise alarm.
I disagree. If you see somebody with a gun and they cause you fear, you should contact the local authorities and have that person's carry permit verified, in which case it was an honest mistake. Or either they are carted off to jail, in which case, you have made the streets that much safer... Granted, you don't have to worry about this outside of the US much right now.
-
@dafyre said:
I desire a weaponized public beause the public needs to be able to defend themselves from criminals that are weaponized.
We do have cops for this. The public is not supposed to need to defend itself.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
So right now if I'm in public and I see someone with a gun - hidden, brandishing, waiving about, looking like a terrorist, etc. - I have no right to complain and no reason to raise alarm.
I disagree. If you see somebody with a gun and they cause you fear, you should contact the local authorities and have that person's carry permit verified, in which case it was an honest mistake. Or either they are carted off to jail, in which case, you have made the streets that much safer... Granted, you don't have to worry about this outside of the US much right now.
That's not practical at all. Should every person call the cops every time they see someone with a gun? As carrying a gun is legal, that would be harassment.
-
@dafyre said:
Just like I believe that the US should have an arsenal and military because other countries have arsenals of weapons and military.
The US and other sovereign states are peers. The public and armed criminals are not. These are not the same kinds of things. I agree that the US should maintain a military given its size. But that it should keep its weapons at home, not take them out "in public."
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
For example, more people die in car accidents, why haven't we banned cars, or at least mandated other protections to save more lives.... I'll tell you why - because of money and because guns are sensational. When someone goes on a shooting spree, they can typically single handedly (missing from FF dictionary) kill 10+ people quickly - cars rarely do this.
Well we haven't banned guns at all, there is just about zero regulations around them. So no banning is happening anywhere at the moment. Cars have many mandated protections. They are used so heavily by so many people that there is little way to make them not a major killer. But we use them continuously and the safety rating is pretty amazing considering that.
Also, in nearly all cases, people that get killed by cars are in cars - meaning that they are essentially optional and only people who opt to use them are the ones in danger.
Yeah, not exactly..
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/02/23/national/crime-legal/driver-held-after-running-over-13-pedestrians-in-nagoya/#.VdyC-vZVhBcWhy? Because the person wanted to and it was the easiest weapon of mass destruction they had access to.
The problem is the person, not the tool in every case.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
For example, more people die in car accidents, why haven't we banned cars, or at least mandated other protections to save more lives.... I'll tell you why - because of money and because guns are sensational. When someone goes on a shooting spree, they can typically single handedly (missing from FF dictionary) kill 10+ people quickly - cars rarely do this.
Well we haven't banned guns at all, there is just about zero regulations around them. So no banning is happening anywhere at the moment. Cars have many mandated protections. They are used so heavily by so many people that there is little way to make them not a major killer. But we use them continuously and the safety rating is pretty amazing considering that.
Also, in nearly all cases, people that get killed by cars are in cars - meaning that they are essentially optional and only people who opt to use them are the ones in danger.
Yeah, not exactly..
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/02/23/national/crime-legal/driver-held-after-running-over-13-pedestrians-in-nagoya/#.VdyC-vZVhBcWhy? Because the person wanted to and it was the easiest weapon of mass destruction they had access to.
The problem is the person, not the tool in every case.
I agree that the base issues are all people. But we can't ban people or always detect which ones are going to do something horrible. But we can make weapons harder to get, harder to use and just saver overall.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
There is a big gap between items that can be makeshift weapons but have legitimate everyday uses and weapons whose purpose is to be a weapon.
True, but to a hunter, their gun is used for obtaining food. That makes it a tool... a knife is used for cutting food... that makes it a tool...
Yes, anyone can attack you with anything. Likewise you can defend yourself with anything. But no one is buying keyboards with the intent to use them to rob you (bad examples, hackers do this, but you get the point.)
And no, I think the keyboard example is a good example of what Jared is talking about... The problem is the people, not the tool.
But a guns only reasonable intent is to either shoot someone or threaten to shoot someone. It's only function is as a weapon and it is very good at being one. Makeshift weapons are rarely very effective, especially at scale.
Or obtain food...God, I must be hungry already... Although you are right. A gun is very good at being a weapon as well.
We can't protect against everything, but we can protect against a lot. It's about adjusting the system for the most good. I don't know if making knives illegal makes sense or not statistically, but it sounds reasonable to me.
I don't need a knife... I have a #2 Pencil here on my desk... oh wait... no, that's my tablet's stylus.
-
So here is a question, obviously we already have gun rules that limit us from having grenades, rocket launchers, fully automatic rifles, tripod mounted canon and similar even more destructive items in public. But if the fear is that criminals will be weaponized and taking away guns will not be effective because the bad guys will always have whatever they want, why do we not allow these other things in public or are the people supporting guns wishing that these things were legal too and feel that they are needed for a higher degree of public self defense?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I suppose what Scott is saying those who want and feel the need to carry guns is the same as the NSAs need to gather all of your information in case you go rouge.
Not exactly the same but yes, overall. The NSA, unnecessary military action overseas, carrying weapons - they all sound like things that protect us on the surface but all of them increase the overall risk by making violence more likely to happen.
Yes, this I very much agree with.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
There is a big gap between items that can be makeshift weapons but have legitimate everyday uses and weapons whose purpose is to be a weapon.
True, but to a hunter, their gun is used for obtaining food. That makes it a tool... a knife is used for cutting food... that makes it a tool...
I don't agree with hunting outside of private land. It's a tool when used in private, it's not a tool in public.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Exactly. But I'll be the first to say (and have) that public transportation should be invested in far more heavily as should self driving cars.
Only if said cars are secure and don't get public IP addresses available for the world to hack^H^H^H^H see.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
So here is a question, obviously we already have gun rules that limit us from having grenades, rocket launchers, fully automatic rifles, tripod mounted canon and similar even more destructive items in public. But if the fear is that criminals will be weaponized and taking away guns will not be effective because the bad guys will always have whatever they want, why do we not allow these other things in public or are the people supporting guns wishing that these things were legal too and feel that they are needed for a higher degree of public self defense?
I said many posts ago that this problem was related to the extremist groups in the gun lobby blocking any intelligent gun control changes for decades.
There are many simply changes that can be done to make it more difficult for the random crazy to get a gun while barely impacting the lawful gun owner.
-
@dafyre said:
But a guns only reasonable intent is to either shoot someone or threaten to shoot someone. It's only function is as a weapon and it is very good at being one. Makeshift weapons are rarely very effective, especially at scale.
Or obtain food...God, I must be hungry already... Although you are right. A gun is very good at being a weapon as well.
I know that theoretically there is someone who uses a gun purely for food. I've known people who hit deer with their car intentionally to get it for food too. These things happen. This is a slightly different discussion but here are my thoughts:
- Hunting in public with a gun is dangerous should not happen. As someone who has been shot at by hunters, I find this appalling.
- When we are talking about the US we are talking about a country that supplies food to everyone. No one needs to hunt (using a gun) to get food and I'm not sure that it is even possible to hunt cost effectively with a gun for food. The cost of hunting is so high, can you ever do this out of need?
- I know lots of hunters and have never met one who hunts for food. They exist, I'll grant you, but most hunt out of "sport." That makes the gun a weapon.
In all these cases, even when hunting purely for survival, yes the gun is a tool, but the tool it is is still a weapon.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
So, just to be clear with what you are saying: as you've not disputed the stats, you are saying that you'd rather than the public better able to defend itself against more violence and have more violent crime overall than to have a less defensible public with less violence so that the defense isn't needed?
Did you read the links that I posted earlier? (if you didn't, go back and check the gun rights one). Florida's homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below (stats are from 1994, FTA) after allowing concealed carry.
