|
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 September 25 2016 23:20 Incognoto wrote: I'm not talking out of my ass either, I've already been to rural areas during hunting season. They're responsible in how they use the guns. The firearms are pointed at the ground, unloaded. Very little risk to other humans, absolutely no malicious intent whatsoever. All armed to the teeth. Yeah, well, in France the majority of the population would still be pleased if hunting could be forbidden on Sundays (78%), and feels unsafe during the hunting season (61%). Source
And even if people are cautious, mortal hunting accidents do happen (~15-20 deaths per season the last years, including a minority of non-hunters).
Yes the alcohol culture in some of our countries is beyond stupid, and smoking kills far more than firearms in some places, etc. But societies aren't organized rationally, so naturally you can always fairly “arbitrary” choices regarding freedom to do such or such thing. It doesn't really nullify the gun question. (Plus, prohibition was tried for alcohol, and it didn't work.)
You cannot simply summon individual freedom in a vacuum, you have to consider “negative externalities”. Which is why there are campaigns against passive smoking, drunk driving, and a gun question.
|
On September 25 2016 23:54 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 23:20 Incognoto wrote:On September 25 2016 18:13 Nebuchad wrote:On September 25 2016 16:55 Incognoto wrote:On September 25 2016 12:31 Nebuchad wrote:On September 25 2016 12:14 micronesia wrote:On September 25 2016 12:02 Sermokala wrote: Thats not as good of an argument as it sounds though. If they didn't have access to guns those deaths wouldn't happen and that is the goal of gun control people.
Granted the big problem with gun control people is that they almost always argue for policies that won't help the situation in either case but thats the issue we've been aruging about for 600 pages or so. you could use it for every death. If people didn't have access to cars, nobody would die in car accidents. All right, but go further than that. It is true that people wouldn't die in car accidents if they weren't using cars. However, as a society, we have acknowledged that the benefits of using cars largely outweigh the inconvenients of using them. Which is why we accept that number. Sure, we try and limit it as much as we can, but we aren't ready to stop using cars entirely, which is the only way to eliminate this number entirely. It might sound harsh to say it like that, but the problem just isn't important enough. A conversation on gun control will happen between someone who thinks that the same standard of utility is met when it comes to gun possession or gun proliferation (depending on whether the argument is about gun control or gun bans), and someone who doesn't. I think this is a discussion worthy of being had. As a sidenote, it's why it always annoys me when people oppose the death penalty "only because you can kill innocents", or use innocents being killed as the center of their argument against it. That's not in itself an argument against the death penalty. No this is an absolutely silly and hypocritical argument. Let's change "cars" to alcohol or tobacco. Where's your argument now? Where is the "benefit to society" from those? There's no utility to alcohol yet the death toll is pretty much x10 that of firearms? Let's take it a step further. Whether or not firearms have actual "uses" is completely and entirely irrelevant to the argument. We live in FREE societies, not Soviet Russia or bad countries like the UK or Australia which has a bad history of impeding on individual rights. If someone wants to own and use a firearm, he is entitled to do that, so long as he is responsible in how he uses it. Alcohol allows you to get drunk, which I'm told is a state people enjoy being in given that they have consistently gotten in that state for thousands of years. Society recognizes that certain things are pleasurable, and as such allows for them. Freedom has always had limits and will always have limits. Where that limit is set is a matter of debate and doesn't in any way mean that we aren't a free society. Why precisely are you allowed to enjoy yourself being drunk and I am not allowed to enjoy my sport shooting or hunting? Why is YOUR pleasure somehow better than mine? I don't drink much. This isn't about your pleasure or mine, this is about discussions that deserve to be had. When we discuss gun control or gun bans, the discussion that is being had is "Are guns beneficial enough to society to justify the harm that they are causing." We can have the same discussion about cars, and we will find that they are, which is why what micronesia pointed out isn't exactly relevant to the gun situation. We can have the same discussion about alcohol, and I would assume that we find that it is beneficial as well. Perhaps you disagree. Perhaps you think that alcohol is a net loss for humanity. If that is the case, what you have here is an argument for limiting alcohol consumption, not an argument for dismissing benefits and losses in other contexts.
No, the discussion is not, and should not, be "are guns beneficial enough to society to justify the harm they're doing". That is fascist thinking, it's government micromanagement, it's abhorrent to look at any problem that way.
The question is not "why should we allow X", the question is "why shouldn't we allow X". There is a huge difference in both approaches. The former is fascism and the latter is what we do in normal, free societies. It's quite similar to "innocent until proven guilty". I think that BMX biking, mountain climbing, etc. are dangerous. I wouldn't do those activities. I would never prevent anyone else from doing it if they wish, because they aren't harming me when they do that.
In the same way, someone who drinks alcohol in moderation and doesn't drink & drive is perfectly fine. The question is not "should we allow alcohol", it's "what regulation do we put around alcohol to encourage its responsible use". Prohibition failed for a reason. The exact same thing applies to firearms. The exact same thing applies to weed. There is a reason why weed is slowly but surely become legalized in western countries. We don't ban it outright, we legalize it, regulate it, make it easier for being to be safe and responsible in how they approach it. Rather than getting their weed from shitty drug dealers who shoot up cities, we now get them through safe legal vendors.
On September 26 2016 00:53 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 23:20 Incognoto wrote: I'm not talking out of my ass either, I've already been to rural areas during hunting season. They're responsible in how they use the guns. The firearms are pointed at the ground, unloaded. Very little risk to other humans, absolutely no malicious intent whatsoever. All armed to the teeth. Yeah, well, in France the majority of the population would still be pleased if hunting could be forbidden on Sundays (78%), and feels unsafe during the hunting season (61%). Source And even if people are cautious, mortal hunting accidents do happen (~15-20 deaths per season the last years, including a minority of non-hunters). Yes the alcohol culture in some of our countries is beyond stupid, and smoking kills far more than firearms in some places, etc. But societies aren't organized rationally, so naturally you can always fairly “arbitrary” choices regarding freedom to do such or such thing. It doesn't really nullify the gun question. (Plus, prohibition was tried for alcohol, and it didn't work.) You cannot simply summon individual freedom in a vacuum, you have to consider “negative externalities”. Which is why there are campaigns against passive smoking, drunk driving, and a gun question.
20 deaths is nothing. It could be 60 and it would still be nothing. Nothing compared to alcohol, tobacco, drugs, cars.
I also do not simply put individual freedom in a vacuum, it's actually insulting you say that because I specifically said
They don't really cause problems though, because firearms are only attributed to individuals who have proven that they are responsible enough to wield them. You may argue that firearms and "free, safe societies" are mutually exclusive. That would be factually incorrect.
So I do not put it in vacuum, I clearly state that a responsible firearm owner can be trusted (and is trusted in pretty much most countries) to not be a danger to others.
Let's talk driving. Why do we allow big, expensive cars? They pollute, their drivers are reckless. Why should anyone be allowed to have a car which goes over 100hp? A 90hp Clio is more than enough to get around anywhere, there are speed limits anyway. We should ban any car over 100 hp because no one "needs" that kind of power in a vehicle. No more sports cars, no more Audi and BWM ego-machines. There are powerful trucks available if you need to haul a heavy load. Ban private transportation entirely, you're only allowed public transit.
Why should we allow private pilots to fly? They're just doing it for fun, but they're putting their lives, other people's lives, property, etc. at risk.
If we adhere to your communist logic (fun fact: in communist Russia, there was only one car you could buy), then there should be no private anything. If we apply your logic to other issues which aren't firearms, then we quickly go into a disgusting 1984 society. I don't want that and neither do you. Putting focus only on firearms as you are doing is false. You can't have double standards when it comes to what you want banned and what you don't want.
You want people to be responsible, then put regulations in place which encourage responsible use. There are penalties for drunk driving. People aren't encouraged to not drink, they're encourage to drink responsibly. In the same way, we should never be forbidding firearms entirely, we should be putting place regulation which means that only responsible people, with no malicious intent, should be allowed to have firearms. Don't pretend that firearm owners are incompatible. I would never prevent anyone from owning a gun, as I would never prevent anyone from doing BMX, drinking or doing drugs. As long as they respect the rest of us, it's fine.
I don't know why I bother, both you and nebuchad only pick out one or two lines from the paragraphs I write and completely ignore the rest of what I said. I basically re-wrote my original post in this one.
|
Fascist thinking, fascism, 1984 society, communist logic... Don't you think the equivalent of 4 Godwin points for such a discussion is overkill? Next time, if our posts piss you off, please take some time to breathe instead of over-reacting, the brown shirts are nowhere to be seen here.
Will answer you a bit later.
|
On September 26 2016 04:13 Incognoto wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 25 2016 23:54 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 23:20 Incognoto wrote:On September 25 2016 18:13 Nebuchad wrote:On September 25 2016 16:55 Incognoto wrote:On September 25 2016 12:31 Nebuchad wrote:On September 25 2016 12:14 micronesia wrote:On September 25 2016 12:02 Sermokala wrote: Thats not as good of an argument as it sounds though. If they didn't have access to guns those deaths wouldn't happen and that is the goal of gun control people.
Granted the big problem with gun control people is that they almost always argue for policies that won't help the situation in either case but thats the issue we've been aruging about for 600 pages or so. you could use it for every death. If people didn't have access to cars, nobody would die in car accidents. All right, but go further than that. It is true that people wouldn't die in car accidents if they weren't using cars. However, as a society, we have acknowledged that the benefits of using cars largely outweigh the inconvenients of using them. Which is why we accept that number. Sure, we try and limit it as much as we can, but we aren't ready to stop using cars entirely, which is the only way to eliminate this number entirely. It might sound harsh to say it like that, but the problem just isn't important enough. A conversation on gun control will happen between someone who thinks that the same standard of utility is met when it comes to gun possession or gun proliferation (depending on whether the argument is about gun control or gun bans), and someone who doesn't. I think this is a discussion worthy of being had. As a sidenote, it's why it always annoys me when people oppose the death penalty "only because you can kill innocents", or use innocents being killed as the center of their argument against it. That's not in itself an argument against the death penalty. No this is an absolutely silly and hypocritical argument. Let's change "cars" to alcohol or tobacco. Where's your argument now? Where is the "benefit to society" from those? There's no utility to alcohol yet the death toll is pretty much x10 that of firearms? Let's take it a step further. Whether or not firearms have actual "uses" is completely and entirely irrelevant to the argument. We live in FREE societies, not Soviet Russia or bad countries like the UK or Australia which has a bad history of impeding on individual rights. If someone wants to own and use a firearm, he is entitled to do that, so long as he is responsible in how he uses it. Alcohol allows you to get drunk, which I'm told is a state people enjoy being in given that they have consistently gotten in that state for thousands of years. Society recognizes that certain things are pleasurable, and as such allows for them. Freedom has always had limits and will always have limits. Where that limit is set is a matter of debate and doesn't in any way mean that we aren't a free society. Why precisely are you allowed to enjoy yourself being drunk and I am not allowed to enjoy my sport shooting or hunting? Why is YOUR pleasure somehow better than mine? I don't drink much. This isn't about your pleasure or mine, this is about discussions that deserve to be had. When we discuss gun control or gun bans, the discussion that is being had is "Are guns beneficial enough to society to justify the harm that they are causing." We can have the same discussion about cars, and we will find that they are, which is why what micronesia pointed out isn't exactly relevant to the gun situation. We can have the same discussion about alcohol, and I would assume that we find that it is beneficial as well. Perhaps you disagree. Perhaps you think that alcohol is a net loss for humanity. If that is the case, what you have here is an argument for limiting alcohol consumption, not an argument for dismissing benefits and losses in other contexts. No, the discussion is not, and should not, be "are guns beneficial enough to society to justify the harm they're doing". That is fascist thinking, it's government micromanagement, it's abhorrent to look at any problem that way. The question is not "why should we allow X", the question is "why shouldn't we allow X". There is a huge difference in both approaches. The former is fascism and the latter is what we do in normal, free societies. It's quite similar to "innocent until proven guilty". I think that BMX biking, mountain climbing, etc. are dangerous. I wouldn't do those activities. I would never prevent anyone else from doing it if they wish, because they aren't harming me when they do that. In the same way, someone who drinks alcohol in moderation and doesn't drink & drive is perfectly fine. The question is not "should we allow alcohol", it's "what regulation do we put around alcohol to encourage its responsible use". Prohibition failed for a reason. The exact same thing applies to firearms. The exact same thing applies to weed. There is a reason why weed is slowly but surely become legalized in western countries. We don't ban it outright, we legalize it, regulate it, make it easier for being to be safe and responsible in how they approach it. Rather than getting their weed from shitty drug dealers who shoot up cities, we now get them through safe legal vendors. On September 26 2016 00:53 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 23:20 Incognoto wrote: I'm not talking out of my ass either, I've already been to rural areas during hunting season. They're responsible in how they use the guns. The firearms are pointed at the ground, unloaded. Very little risk to other humans, absolutely no malicious intent whatsoever. All armed to the teeth. Yeah, well, in France the majority of the population would still be pleased if hunting could be forbidden on Sundays (78%), and feels unsafe during the hunting season (61%). Source And even if people are cautious, mortal hunting accidents do happen (~15-20 deaths per season the last years, including a minority of non-hunters). Yes the alcohol culture in some of our countries is beyond stupid, and smoking kills far more than firearms in some places, etc. But societies aren't organized rationally, so naturally you can always fairly “arbitrary” choices regarding freedom to do such or such thing. It doesn't really nullify the gun question. (Plus, prohibition was tried for alcohol, and it didn't work.) You cannot simply summon individual freedom in a vacuum, you have to consider “negative externalities”. Which is why there are campaigns against passive smoking, drunk driving, and a gun question. 20 deaths is nothing. It could be 60 and it would still be nothing. Nothing compared to alcohol, tobacco, drugs, cars. I also do not simply put individual freedom in a vacuum, it's actually insulting you say that because I specifically said They don't really cause problems though, because firearms are only attributed to individuals who have proven that they are responsible enough to wield them. You may argue that firearms and "free, safe societies" are mutually exclusive. That would be factually incorrect. So I do not put it in vacuum, I clearly state that a responsible firearm owner can be trusted (and is trusted in pretty much most countries) to not be a danger to others. Let's talk driving. Why do we allow big, expensive cars? They pollute, their drivers are reckless. Why should anyone be allowed to have a car which goes over 100hp? A 90hp Clio is more than enough to get around anywhere, there are speed limits anyway. We should ban any car over 100 hp because no one "needs" that kind of power in a vehicle. No more sports cars, no more Audi and BWM ego-machines. There are powerful trucks available if you need to haul a heavy load. Ban private transportation entirely, you're only allowed public transit. Why should we allow private pilots to fly? They're just doing it for fun, but they're putting their lives, other people's lives, property, etc. at risk. If we adhere to your communist logic (fun fact: in communist Russia, there was only one car you could buy), then there should be no private anything. If we apply your logic to other issues which aren't firearms, then we quickly go into a disgusting 1984 society. I don't want that and neither do you. Putting focus only on firearms as you are doing is false. You can't have double standards when it comes to what you want banned and what you don't want. You want people to be responsible, then put regulations in place which encourage responsible use. There are penalties for drunk driving. People aren't encouraged to not drink, they're encourage to drink responsibly. In the same way, we should never be forbidding firearms entirely, we should be putting place regulation which means that only responsible people, with no malicious intent, should be allowed to have firearms. Don't pretend that firearm owners are incompatible. I would never prevent anyone from owning a gun, as I would never prevent anyone from doing BMX, drinking or doing drugs. As long as they respect the rest of us, it's fine. I don't know why I bother, both you and nebuchad only pick out one or two lines from the paragraphs I write and completely ignore the rest of what I said. I basically re-wrote my original post in this one. I'm curious; do you know much about the process through which seatbelts (or maybe you know them as safety belts) were made mandatory in US automobiles?
|
On September 26 2016 05:14 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2016 04:13 Incognoto wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 25 2016 23:54 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 23:20 Incognoto wrote:On September 25 2016 18:13 Nebuchad wrote:On September 25 2016 16:55 Incognoto wrote:On September 25 2016 12:31 Nebuchad wrote:On September 25 2016 12:14 micronesia wrote:On September 25 2016 12:02 Sermokala wrote: Thats not as good of an argument as it sounds though. If they didn't have access to guns those deaths wouldn't happen and that is the goal of gun control people.
Granted the big problem with gun control people is that they almost always argue for policies that won't help the situation in either case but thats the issue we've been aruging about for 600 pages or so. you could use it for every death. If people didn't have access to cars, nobody would die in car accidents. All right, but go further than that. It is true that people wouldn't die in car accidents if they weren't using cars. However, as a society, we have acknowledged that the benefits of using cars largely outweigh the inconvenients of using them. Which is why we accept that number. Sure, we try and limit it as much as we can, but we aren't ready to stop using cars entirely, which is the only way to eliminate this number entirely. It might sound harsh to say it like that, but the problem just isn't important enough. A conversation on gun control will happen between someone who thinks that the same standard of utility is met when it comes to gun possession or gun proliferation (depending on whether the argument is about gun control or gun bans), and someone who doesn't. I think this is a discussion worthy of being had. As a sidenote, it's why it always annoys me when people oppose the death penalty "only because you can kill innocents", or use innocents being killed as the center of their argument against it. That's not in itself an argument against the death penalty. No this is an absolutely silly and hypocritical argument. Let's change "cars" to alcohol or tobacco. Where's your argument now? Where is the "benefit to society" from those? There's no utility to alcohol yet the death toll is pretty much x10 that of firearms? Let's take it a step further. Whether or not firearms have actual "uses" is completely and entirely irrelevant to the argument. We live in FREE societies, not Soviet Russia or bad countries like the UK or Australia which has a bad history of impeding on individual rights. If someone wants to own and use a firearm, he is entitled to do that, so long as he is responsible in how he uses it. Alcohol allows you to get drunk, which I'm told is a state people enjoy being in given that they have consistently gotten in that state for thousands of years. Society recognizes that certain things are pleasurable, and as such allows for them. Freedom has always had limits and will always have limits. Where that limit is set is a matter of debate and doesn't in any way mean that we aren't a free society. Why precisely are you allowed to enjoy yourself being drunk and I am not allowed to enjoy my sport shooting or hunting? Why is YOUR pleasure somehow better than mine? I don't drink much. This isn't about your pleasure or mine, this is about discussions that deserve to be had. When we discuss gun control or gun bans, the discussion that is being had is "Are guns beneficial enough to society to justify the harm that they are causing." We can have the same discussion about cars, and we will find that they are, which is why what micronesia pointed out isn't exactly relevant to the gun situation. We can have the same discussion about alcohol, and I would assume that we find that it is beneficial as well. Perhaps you disagree. Perhaps you think that alcohol is a net loss for humanity. If that is the case, what you have here is an argument for limiting alcohol consumption, not an argument for dismissing benefits and losses in other contexts. No, the discussion is not, and should not, be "are guns beneficial enough to society to justify the harm they're doing". That is fascist thinking, it's government micromanagement, it's abhorrent to look at any problem that way. The question is not "why should we allow X", the question is "why shouldn't we allow X". There is a huge difference in both approaches. The former is fascism and the latter is what we do in normal, free societies. It's quite similar to "innocent until proven guilty". I think that BMX biking, mountain climbing, etc. are dangerous. I wouldn't do those activities. I would never prevent anyone else from doing it if they wish, because they aren't harming me when they do that. In the same way, someone who drinks alcohol in moderation and doesn't drink & drive is perfectly fine. The question is not "should we allow alcohol", it's "what regulation do we put around alcohol to encourage its responsible use". Prohibition failed for a reason. The exact same thing applies to firearms. The exact same thing applies to weed. There is a reason why weed is slowly but surely become legalized in western countries. We don't ban it outright, we legalize it, regulate it, make it easier for being to be safe and responsible in how they approach it. Rather than getting their weed from shitty drug dealers who shoot up cities, we now get them through safe legal vendors. On September 26 2016 00:53 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 23:20 Incognoto wrote: I'm not talking out of my ass either, I've already been to rural areas during hunting season. They're responsible in how they use the guns. The firearms are pointed at the ground, unloaded. Very little risk to other humans, absolutely no malicious intent whatsoever. All armed to the teeth. Yeah, well, in France the majority of the population would still be pleased if hunting could be forbidden on Sundays (78%), and feels unsafe during the hunting season (61%). Source And even if people are cautious, mortal hunting accidents do happen (~15-20 deaths per season the last years, including a minority of non-hunters). Yes the alcohol culture in some of our countries is beyond stupid, and smoking kills far more than firearms in some places, etc. But societies aren't organized rationally, so naturally you can always fairly “arbitrary” choices regarding freedom to do such or such thing. It doesn't really nullify the gun question. (Plus, prohibition was tried for alcohol, and it didn't work.) You cannot simply summon individual freedom in a vacuum, you have to consider “negative externalities”. Which is why there are campaigns against passive smoking, drunk driving, and a gun question. 20 deaths is nothing. It could be 60 and it would still be nothing. Nothing compared to alcohol, tobacco, drugs, cars. I also do not simply put individual freedom in a vacuum, it's actually insulting you say that because I specifically said They don't really cause problems though, because firearms are only attributed to individuals who have proven that they are responsible enough to wield them. You may argue that firearms and "free, safe societies" are mutually exclusive. That would be factually incorrect. So I do not put it in vacuum, I clearly state that a responsible firearm owner can be trusted (and is trusted in pretty much most countries) to not be a danger to others. Let's talk driving. Why do we allow big, expensive cars? They pollute, their drivers are reckless. Why should anyone be allowed to have a car which goes over 100hp? A 90hp Clio is more than enough to get around anywhere, there are speed limits anyway. We should ban any car over 100 hp because no one "needs" that kind of power in a vehicle. No more sports cars, no more Audi and BWM ego-machines. There are powerful trucks available if you need to haul a heavy load. Ban private transportation entirely, you're only allowed public transit. Why should we allow private pilots to fly? They're just doing it for fun, but they're putting their lives, other people's lives, property, etc. at risk. If we adhere to your communist logic (fun fact: in communist Russia, there was only one car you could buy), then there should be no private anything. If we apply your logic to other issues which aren't firearms, then we quickly go into a disgusting 1984 society. I don't want that and neither do you. Putting focus only on firearms as you are doing is false. You can't have double standards when it comes to what you want banned and what you don't want. You want people to be responsible, then put regulations in place which encourage responsible use. There are penalties for drunk driving. People aren't encouraged to not drink, they're encourage to drink responsibly. In the same way, we should never be forbidding firearms entirely, we should be putting place regulation which means that only responsible people, with no malicious intent, should be allowed to have firearms. Don't pretend that firearm owners are incompatible. I would never prevent anyone from owning a gun, as I would never prevent anyone from doing BMX, drinking or doing drugs. As long as they respect the rest of us, it's fine. I don't know why I bother, both you and nebuchad only pick out one or two lines from the paragraphs I write and completely ignore the rest of what I said. I basically re-wrote my original post in this one. I'm curious; do you know much about the process through which seatbelts (or maybe you know them as safety belts) were made mandatory in US automobiles?
I don't but I'm guessing that it was long, drawn-out annoying process which took many deaths until it was accepted. It's stupid, yes. I'm not disagreeing with gun regulation and yes, the USA has an issue with that. Hence my referencing Europe. France and Germany have proper firearm laws, the UK does not.
|
On September 26 2016 00:53 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2016 23:20 Incognoto wrote: I'm not talking out of my ass either, I've already been to rural areas during hunting season. They're responsible in how they use the guns. The firearms are pointed at the ground, unloaded. Very little risk to other humans, absolutely no malicious intent whatsoever. All armed to the teeth. Yeah, well, in France the majority of the population would still be pleased if hunting could be forbidden on Sundays (78%), and feels unsafe during the hunting season (61%). Source And even if people are cautious, mortal hunting accidents do happen (~15-20 deaths per season the last years, including a minority of non-hunters). Yes the alcohol culture in some of our countries is beyond stupid, and smoking kills far more than firearms in some places, etc. But societies aren't organized rationally, so naturally you can always fairly “arbitrary” choices regarding freedom to do such or such thing. It doesn't really nullify the gun question. (Plus, prohibition was tried for alcohol, and it didn't work.) You cannot simply summon individual freedom in a vacuum, you have to consider “negative externalities”. Which is why there are campaigns against passive smoking, drunk driving, and a gun question. i'm trying to parse the content of this post and i'm really having difficulty. on one hand, i see that you're talking about alcohol and how it objective kills more people than firearms, but in the same breath you are for asking the 'gun question'. what is the gun question?
you also mention that individual freedom can't be considered in a vacuum, but acknowledge that societies aren't rational and will make arbitrary decisions.
is it really an opinion formed in a vacuum when out of 300 million known firearms in circulation there are only 30k gun related deaths per year? of only which 10k are cause by malicious intent? how do we eliminate the remaining 66%? and for what reasons do the 33% exist?
no one is doing anyone any favors by asking the apparent 'gun question'. the gun question exists, it's just no one knows how to effectively answer it.
|
|
Fuck, pls world Stop shooting persons. I just pray to God that this post could be the last in this thread. Whatever this God is, independent of wich religion is, just pls. Because humans are fucking shit up.
|
Russian Federation1016 Posts
Remember, no Russian.
User was warned for this post
|
(fun fact: in communist Russia, there was only one car you could buy)
Pretty hard to take anything you say seriously when your arguments are mixed with 'facts' like this.
|
Update on the Northern Arizona University Shooting:
+ Show Spoiler +FLAGSTAFF — After a scant five days of intermittent deliberations at Coconino County Superior Court, the jury in the Northern Arizona University shooting case sent a note to Judge Dan Slayton.
"In the event that we cannot come to a consensus of guilty or not guilty on all counts, what shall we do?" the note read.
Slayton sent back a note. "Has the jury reached a verdict on any counts?"
The answer: "No."
Slayton sent them a standard written jury-impasse instruction, and they returned to deliberations. But it didn't matter.
Shortly after 4 p.m. Tuesday, Slayton gathered jurors back in courtroom. They still could not agree on a verdict. Slayton declared a mistrial.
Slayton set a tentative new trial date of Aug. 1 with the expectation it would be continued until a later date.
Slayton later told the media gathered outside the courthouse Tuesday afternoon that jurors had asked not to speak to the media.
Prosecutors Ammon Barker and Bryan Shea, and defense attorneys Burges McCowan and Joshua Davidson, also declined comment after the mistrial was declared.
Steven Jones, who stood accused of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in the October 2015 shootings, was present when the mistrial declared. After court was adjourned, he turned to hug and kiss his mother.
None of the surviving victims of the shooting and few of their family members attended the hastily called hearing Tuesday afternoon.
Reached later, Kim Prato, mother of surviving shooting victim Nick Prato, said, "We are saddened by the current jury’s inability to come to a consensus in this trial but are given strength with the fact we have the truth on our side and that justice will prevail."
The jury of six men and six women began deliberating April 25. But the specter of a mistrial appeared almost immediately when deliberations were suspended the next morning so Slayton could consider a defense motion arguing that prosecutors had misled the jury in closing arguments.
Prosecutors Barker and Shea earlier had convinced Slayton to preclude statements Jones made to police right after the shooting, while he was sitting in a patrol car, about thinking he was going to die during the attack and questioning why a group of fraternity brothers were trying to hurt him.
But then, in his closing statement, Barker led the jury to believe that Jones had made no statements related to self-defense until hours later at the police station. Defense attorney Davidson argued for a remedy.
Slayton denied the mistrial motion, but on April 27, he read an instruction to jurors informing them of Barker’s misrepresentation.
The jury then returned to deliberations.
Jones is charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of Colin Brough during a fight at the edge of the NAU campus in fall 2015. He also faces aggravated assault charges in the wounding of three other students.
Jones has argued he fired his gun in self-defense. Prosecutors say his actions were premeditated.
The trial began April 4 and, over the course of three weeks, prosecutors and defense attorneys brought 37 witnesses to the stand, including the surviving victims and Jones himself.
As an 18-year-old freshman, Jones had parked his red Mustang in a parking lot on campus on the evening of Oct. 8, 2015. He and three of his friends, all pledges for the Sigma Chi fraternity, then walked to an off-campus apartment complex to attend a party.
They hung out, playing the game "Guitar Hero" for about an hour, then made their way back toward Jones’ car.
When they realized one of the group was no longer with them, they stopped to call him in front of an apartment building known as the Courtyard, where a party was taking place. They may have rung a doorbell, raising the ire of some Delta Chi fraternity brothers who had been trying to keep a lid on strangers coming into the party.
A shouting match ensued, though both sides disagree as to how aggressive the fraternity brothers were and whether Jones and friends were defiant.
Then one of the partygoers inexplicably ran up and sucker-punched Jones, knocking out a dental bridge in his mouth and knocking the glasses from his face.
Jones ran to his car and pulled a gun from the glove box. He then walked 90 feet to confront the attackers. He testified he thought they were still menacing his friends.
He says two students charged him and he fired, killing Brough and wounding Brough's roommate, Nick Piring. But other witnesses say Brough was only walking toward Jones and that Piring was running to Brough to try to calm him down.
As Jones tried to render aid to Brough, he claims he was jumped by the crowd and fired blindly in the air. Those shots wounded two other students, Prato and Kyle Zientek.
The tragedy made national news and shook NAU’s Flagstaff campus. It was the first school shooting in the university’s 116-year history. When news of the shooting broke in the early morning hours of Oct. 9, parents with children at NAU began texting and calling them to make sure they were all right. Jones says he feared for his life
Jones was later charged with first-degree, premeditated murder and six counts of aggravated assault.
Over objections of the prosecution, Slayton released Jones on his own recognizance. He has been staying until now with his parents in Glendale.
Jones and his two friends described being set upon by a mob of mostly drunken and angry fraternity brothers.
The fraternity brothers denied there was any violence on their part after the first sucker punch, but Jones’ friends described being taken to the ground.
Jones claimed his life was in danger and that he fired on Brough and Piring because they were about to tackle him.
Prosecutors say Jones was never in danger for his life, and that he returned to the fight with premeditation — and a gun.
Though Piring and some of the other fraternity brothers testified that Jones and Brough were several feet apart, the autopsy report showed that Brough was two feet or closer to the muzzle of Jones’ gun when he fired. The trajectory of the bullets indicated that Brough was leaning forward as if lunging, as some witnesses said.
The prosecution suggested that perhaps Brough tripped and fell.
Both sides quibbled as to the number of people who jumped Jones after the first shooting.
Several of the witnesses described trying to subdue Jones and take away his gun. Jones said he was certain that if they took it from him, they would shoot him and kill him. He said he fired into the air, striking Prato and Zientek. The prosecution alleged that Jones intended to shoot them.
Each side accused the other of lying to protect their interests.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2017/05/02/steven-jones-nau-murder-trial-mistrial/306679001/
|
|
50 deads, 200 injured and the first reflex of people is to assign political view to this catastrophy
we are fucked
|
Northern Ireland22201 Posts
Having trouble understanding what simply posting news tweets adds to this discussion
|
On October 02 2017 22:18 ahswtini wrote:Having trouble understanding what simply posting news tweets adds to this discussion Just figured the thread would need bumped for discussion about it, since some is already going on in the politics thread. I don't personally get into arguments over abortion or guns.
|
|
RIP to the people of LV tonight.
Hopefully the injured people gets the proper treatment.
|
Everything about this sucks. And the more details will likely show that people should have seen this coming. Because hindsight is great at pointing out where we failed to see what was directly in front of us.
|
|
|
|
|
|