Non-IT News Thread
-
@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.
-
@dafyre said:
@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.
How does that stat in any way support having guns? You are using the assumption of guns as a justification for more guns. Florida is still very dangerous for gun violence when compared to places without guns. That concealed carry is better than no concealed carry when guns are already assumed has never been questioned.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
In an ideal world... I do agree that the public is not supposed to need to defend oursevles; we just live in a world that isn't perfect. We don't have enough police, fire, or emt members (and we don't pay the ones we do have enough).
If somebody is breaking into my house (and it is apparent that I and my family are home), it will take the cops $interval to get here. I have a wife and kid to protect. I'm not going to just hide them in a bathroom and go off looking. I will be staying close to protect the family while my wife calls 911. My dog's job is to protect the house and alert us to intruders....(120 pounds of woof is a lot of woof if you are breaking into somebody house, lol).
But a big dog with a loud bark is no guarantee that the intruder will leave. What do I do when he finds us in our "safe spot" ? I'm not waiting for the cops.
-
@dafyre said:
In an ideal world... I do agree that the public is not supposed to need to defend oursevles; we just live in a world that isn't perfect.
You are correct, we cannot work in a world of idealism. However, statistics show, that realism says that taking away all the guns works and works really well. It's not idealism, it's very much realism.
-
@dafyre said:
But a big dog with a loud bark is no guarantee that the intruder will leave. What do I do when he finds us in our "safe spot" ? I'm not waiting for the cops.
Again, you are assuming that bad things will happen. You are ignoring that the whole point is to make the bad things less likely to happen. Being shot at, robbed at gun point or your house violently intruded are not likely even in the US with guns as they are today. So you have to start from the point of this being unlikely.
You also have to look at safety stats in the US that show that houses with guns are less safe than houses without, mostly due to accidents.
But then you have to look at safety stats of gunless countries where all of those crimes are far less likely.
So again, what I'm saying is, your ability to have that gun is putting your family at greater risk. Not you having a gun in hand once someone is in your house, but the very right to have the gun puts them at risk.
-
Sadly, people who want there to be guns don't just put themselves at risk, but they make it more dangerous for everyone. The people who don't want to have guns suffer from those that do.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I know that theoretically there is someone who uses a gun purely for food.
Now you know one for fact. The only time I ever use my gun (well it was a family shared gun) was for hunting (deer, squirrel, and turkey).
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:
Slightly more expensive way to hunt, lol.
- Hunting in public with a gun is dangerous should not happen. As someone who has been shot at by hunters, I find this appalling.
Hunting in public (as is firing off your weapon in public) is and should be illegal. Too many things to go wrong.... and what could you hunt in public places? Deer and Bears usually avoid bigger cities.
- 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?
Actually it's not so bad if you are a good shot (sadly, I would have to resort to fishing, lol). I've got family members that bag at least a deer or two every year and they eat off of it for months at a time. He skins & cleans it himself. I think he has somebody else process it for him.
- 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.
I am looking forward to hunting again after I get my ears back. Hunting for sport makes me sad / angry. If you hunt, you should hunt for food. Hunting for sport just isn't right (sorry.... it's that southern upbringing again).
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.
I can agree with that.... but it all comes back to the Person as well.
