Non-IT News Thread
-
@dafyre said:
So now that they've gone and taken away the 2nd Amendment. What's stop them from taking the first... or fourth? "You let us take away your right to bear arms. Now we are going to censor you."
That's not really a slope. If they wanted to take away amendments (which are just amendments, remember we didn't start with them) then they will. No need to have one go first.
And of course we want them to take away the first. Who supports the first amendment, it's totally evil. If taking away the second amendment let us start re-evaluating the bill of rights wouldn't that be awesome?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I agree - in the sense that carrying or brandishing a weapon incites fear and constitutes use. But how does that make it sensible to carry a gun yourself? That someone who does pull a weapon on you might plan to shoot you (actually still rather unlikely, normally they want you to back away) doesn't change the overall point that it is by having so many guns available that they are more likely to have one and more likely to use it on you.
Let's replace gun with knife. So now we should take away all knives? They can be a weapon... forks? sporks? spoons(I'm just being an idiot here, but it is for effect... You ever been cut by a spoon) ?
-
@dafyre said:
Let's replace gun with knife. So now we should take away all knives?
Japan did, and now slashing attacks there inspire the same type of horror as typical gun attacks in the US. A typical attack not being a mass shooting, but your average random murder.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
And of course we want them to take away the first. Who supports the first amendment, it's totally evil. If taking away the second amendment let us start re-evaluating the bill of rights wouldn't that be awesome?
As I said... Slippery slope.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
How is it out of context? For the person who has a conceled carry permit, why should they not carry their weapon with them?
Because it puts everyone at risk. It lowers the safety of people in public.
It does? How?
In the ways that we keep discussing. When guns are easy to get, there are more of them. When everyone has guns no one (people, police, etc.) can easily identify someone who should not have one. Countries that don't allow guns have less gun violence. That might sound obvious but it's what you guys appear to be arguing against - that disallowing guns somehow increases gun violence. Which I admit, there are logic points that I used to think made sense that suggest that this could be the case. But statistically it has been shown very strongly that countries restricting guns also reduce gun violence and the the American idea that having lots of guns reduces gun risk doesn't work.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
That people carry guns increases the chance that this situation will arise. I want to stop the situation from coming up rather than equipping a small percentage of the population to have a violent confrontation when it does arise.
It will stop criminals who want guns from getting them?
Many, yes. That's the biggest advantage. Every person carrying a gun legally makes it easier for a criminal to do so too.
How do you figure?
-
@dafyre said:
Let's replace gun with knife. So now we should take away all knives? They can be a weapon... forks? sporks? spoons(I'm just being an idiot here, but it is for effect... You ever been cut by a spoon) ?
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.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
If we lived in a war zone, I would totally understand. But we aren't in Syria or Nigeria.
Been in South Chicago lately?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
That people carry guns increases the chance that this situation will arise. I want to stop the situation from coming up rather than equipping a small percentage of the population to have a violent confrontation when it does arise.
It will stop criminals who want guns from getting them?
Many, yes. That's the biggest advantage. Every person carrying a gun legally makes it easier for a criminal to do so too.
How do you figure?
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 literally have no way to tell who should and should not have a weapon.
When no one is allowed to have a gun (police not included) it is relatively easy to know when a criminal is there with a gun, because any gun is one to be reported and be concerned about.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
In the ways that we keep discussing. When guns are easy to get, there are more of them. When everyone has guns no one (people, police, etc.) can easily identify someone who should not have one. Countries that don't allow guns have less gun violence.
See my post about slashing attacks in Japan. The fear is still there. just the weapon changed. The gun or knife is not the issue, it is only the method. The issue is people not tools.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
Now you're on the slippery slope of taking away 2nd Ammendment rights. Because once it starts there... where does it stop?
Once we can't have guns anymore.... it would stop there right? Where else is there for it to go?
Oh, don't be a simpleton. Those types of changes are never self contained to only one issue. If things in the US change enough that enough of the populace would support this type of constitutional amendment, how many other thing would be taken away by a government wielding this type of fear over the populace prior to this change?
I live firmly rooted in reality not some Utopian dream world.
Hell the NSA has already taken away our right to privacy by spying on us. I think that most of us would believe it to be illegal, but crazy things like the Patriot Act allow this nonsense.
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.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
And of course we want them to take away the first. Who supports the first amendment, it's totally evil. If taking away the second amendment let us start re-evaluating the bill of rights wouldn't that be awesome?
As I said... Slippery slope.
One could say that the Bill of Rights itself was a slippery slope. The BoR was a massive change to the constitution.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@dafyre said:
Let's replace gun with knife. So now we should take away all knives?
Japan did.
Forgive my lack of cultural knowledge...are chopsticks part of Japanese Culture as well as Chineese?
Those can be made sharp and pointy too.. Point is, anything not bolted down can be a weapon. My keyboard would hurt you at least for a few seconds if I whacked you on the head with it. Pens and even the trusty old #2 pencils can hurt folks.
Arguably, I'd be less concerned about somebody approaching me with a #2 pencil or a keyboard than a knife, lol.
-
-
@dafyre said:
Arguably, I'd be less concerned about somebody approaching me with a #2 pencil or a keyboard than a knife, lol.
That is my point, once the current weapon is banned, another will take it's place. The problem is the people not the tool.
-
@dafyre said:
@JaredBusch said:
@dafyre said:
Let's replace gun with knife. So now we should take away all knives?
Japan did.
Forgive my lack of cultural knowledge...are chopsticks part of Japanese Culture as well as Chineese?
Those can be made sharp and pointy too.. Point is, anything not bolted down can be a weapon. My keyboard would hurt you at least for a few seconds if I whacked you on the head with it. Pens and even the trusty old #2 pencils can hurt folks.
Arguably, I'd be less concerned about somebody approaching me with a #2 pencil or a keyboard than a knife, lol.
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.
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.) 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.
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.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
How is it out of context? For the person who has a conceled carry permit, why should they not carry their weapon with them?
Because it puts everyone at risk. It lowers the safety of people in public.
It does? How?
In the ways that we keep discussing. When guns are easy to get, there are more of them. When everyone has guns no one (people, police, etc.) can easily identify someone who should not have one. Countries that don't allow guns have less gun violence. That might sound obvious but it's what you guys appear to be arguing against - that disallowing guns somehow increases gun violence. Which I admit, there are logic points that I used to think made sense that suggest that this could be the case. But statistically it has been shown very strongly that countries restricting guns also reduce gun violence and the the American idea that having lots of guns reduces gun risk doesn't work.
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! 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.
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).
-
@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.
