Dark blue OR & gun control

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by DarkJello, Oct 1, 2015.

  1. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    The "freedom to not get shot" doesn't exist as long as there are still guns around. If the police still have guns, you're liable to get shot by them. If the military still have guns, you're liable to get shot by them. If the criminals still have guns, you're liable to get shot by them. If some foreign organization (military, criminal, police) still have guns, you're liable to get shot by them.

    Many people, on both sides of the issue in this thread, have been derisive of the Federal US government for more than just it's gun policies. If you don't trust the Central US government to not do stupid/bad things than why would you trust them with a monopoly on firearms?

    Likewise, many of you have also participated in the thread about "systemic issues with US police" (and it's various problems and causes) and most agreed that there was a problem, specifically with police likely too often resorting to lethal force, and/or otherwise greatly favoring protecting themselves above the general populace.

    So it's not like leaving the local law enforcement with a monopoly on guns works either, or would, based on common perception of the issues there (though debatable, some of that could decrease in terms of accidental shootings where toys are mistaken for the real thing... but I doubt this would be the case, as police should consider anything that looks to be a weapon as if it were a weapon, even if they are made illegal).

    Now, it can be argued that there could be fewer mass shootings. Possibly even less homicides overall (but that is more debatable). The freedom to not have those happen as often is certainly worthy. On the other hand, you lose the freedom to fight back in case of a government turning oppressive. Or to quickly and easily supplement your own military forces in case of an invasion.

    And surely everyone knows that is a possibility yes? Even in Europe (especially in Europe?) there is a history of such things happening.

    Themacca brought up the reasonable point that military tech might have advanced to the point that the general firearms (rifles, shotguns, pistols) wouldn't make a real difference. I don't think that's accurate, but it's a reasonable point to discuss when several (not just the US) military forces have access to autonomous flying drones* with long battery-lives, WMDs of various types, MOABs, and at least proto-type railguns. And that's what we KNOW, who knows about some classified tech.

    Meanwhile, in Switzerland, there's a fairly high rate of gun ownership, though still less than half of the US. However, half of those are government issue militia rifles, so in actuality, Switzerland has fewer privately owned guns (and their ammo) in homes than Sweden or Germany. Militia ammo is not stored in the house.

    Their laws do, however, supposedly ensure the right to buy and use privately owned arms, though I believe they have stricter importation and such.

    It could be that the Swiss have a solid middle-ground here, though there is the question of how vulnerable the millitia could be without locally stored ammo in the case of a coup or something, but they still allow private ownership of weapons. Switzerland also has a very, very low murder rate, and mass shootings are almost unheard of (though some have occurred of course).

    How much of that is gun-law, and how much of that is cultural? How much of it is relative social equality? Etc.

    Are guns really the issue? Or is it the hoarding of guns? Or is it a societal problem?

    The issue here is not as simple as: "Get rid of all the guns!" or "Give everyone all the guns!" It seems to me there are more factors. Even if "hoarding" is an issue, what's causing it? Why do people feel the need to own, on average, slightly more than one gun per residence?**

    *(Taranis is probably the most well-known UK one?)

    **(I of course do understand those that use guns in their daily life, particularly those that hunt, or live on/use rural property that varmints and pesky wildlife can get onto regularly, having different guns for different situations, but the majority of US residents live in sub/urban areas these days, last I checked, so...)
    DarkJello likes this.
  2. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    I disagree. Just because you dislike a direction doesn't make those who like it mindless. This is why I dislike labels like "sheep" because I don't think it actually applies. It, like many of these kinds of labels, is meant to diminish and insult the POV of others.

    Let them abort who they want?

    As you noted, it's a trade-off. So you "want to" take away choice not because you want to take away choice, but because some things, as a society, we consider that people shouldn't have a specific choice. We take away the "choice" to **** and pillage because we believe that the loss of freedom provides a net benefit to society.

    In the case of guns in the US, I don't know where that line is.
  3. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    I'm from a country where we try not to keep electing self serving ass holes and morons sooooo.


    the first must be a valid concrn in a place where the winning party replaces people working goverment jobs with those on their own side like some sort of nepotism lotery. so I understand where you are coming from but hahahahaha.

    the second one is a dumb idea, for "insurgents geting wiped in all conventional firefights against well trained modern army"- reasons.
  4. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    This is actually kind of an interesting thing to discuss.

    Is the 2-party partly to blame for the distrust in government? The system, as it stands, basically says, "Half the time, the people in power are ones who you fundamentally disagree with." So it seems to stand to reason that people going to be dissatisfied with government at least 50% of the time.

    The "checks and balances" idea, while well intentioned, when combined with the desire of politicians to be career politicians, seems to have created a situation where politicians are more interested in ensuring continued support from their base rather than actually governing.
  5. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    Uh huh. Sure.
  6. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    I don't think it's "checks and balances" that's the origin of a 2-party system. In fact, "checks and balances" would work much better with a far greater number of parties.
  7. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    I actually wasn't trying to link the 2 together in that way, hence the new paragraph. But I agree with you that the 2-party system doesn't work well with it.
  8. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    I think it's related is the thing. The 2-party system as it is came about largely and precisely because of politicians wanting to secure their positions. It's a manifestation of that aspect of wanting to secure "support" vs actually doing their jobs properly.
  9. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    I agree with you on that.

    To clarify: I wasn't trying to say checks and balances created the 2 party system (my opinion is that it's just math + first past the post voting system), that's the part I was saying I wasn't trying to link together.
  10. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    no, this is actually true, my goverment hasn't done anything genocidal and tyranical since that massacre business trying to stop the dutch indies from becoming indonesia. in the lte 1940's
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2015
  11. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    Uh huh. Sure.

    EDIT: Look, you're going in the wrong direction. While I'm sure you do actually end up with some self-serving ass-holes in government, that's not the point. I've nothing against the Dutch or anything, and I'm sure your government is likely doing better than the US government, particularly in terms of how often they go off to kill people in other nations (though historically it might be more even or less favorable for your nation, that's hardly important to this discussion at hand).

    The point is that you seem to think the nation of the US, or more specifically, the people, WANT to elect these people. That they like what's going on. At least that is the implication of your statement prior.

    You have a great deal of contempt for the nation. I understand why, but I also think that contempt should be properly focused on the government... and the reasons WHY these people are getting in.

    The elections are effectively rigged (more important ones like the Presidency to larger or lesser degrees) by the RNC and DNC. With, generally, cooperation from the polarized and politicized media outlets.

    There are, of course, ignorant people that vote for some of these politicians, but that's largely a function of either name recognition ("I don't know any of these people! I guess I'll vote for that guy I saw an ad for...") which is, admittedly, a bad sign as far as the people go, or because they believe in the lies the candidates make in terms of what they will do (or the lies that what they will do will actually be a good thing).

    Sokolov mentioned in the Putin thread, that he finds it disturbing that in the case of the US, there's "more than one person" (administration, I assume? correct me if you meant otherwise Sok) involved in the imperialism/making war to protect "interests." To me, it seems like it's the same "group." The Democrats and Republicans fight on some domestic issues (most but not all minor, others about who gets the pork and who gets suppressed) but continuously serve the same foreign policies. They have the same goals. They aren't really enemies, but using the 2-party system and the media to control the possible outcomes of the election while trying to hide their true nature from the public behind "partisan bickering."

    Now, it's possible that regardless of all of this, the people of the nation are still ethically liable. Maybe we haven't done enough to put a stop to that nonsense. Thinking about that (and Greece's debt, and various other things) was part of why I made the thread asking about precisely that subject.

    But FFS man you're condescension and derision could use better aim. This isn't some political complaint. It's your attitude. Now, as far as I'm concerned, you're free to go on that way if you want, but it's not going to benefit you or anyone else, and it's not going to get people to seriously consider any actual points you might have.
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2015
    DarkJello likes this.
  12. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    heh, Ragic has a gunboner for exactly that.
    uh huh, sure.
  13. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    Uh huh. Sure.
  14. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    I meant it more in terms of the cultural superiority, where if Americans get involved, they are fighting for freedom and democracy, but if Russians are involved, it must be ideological to keep tyrants in power. That kind of attitude, where Americans question intervention more typically with "Is it really our problem?" rather than "What is our goal, and is it justified?"
  15. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    uh huh, suuuuuuuuure.
  16. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    Yes dear.
  17. themacca

    themacca Master of Challenges

    I think you're an okay dude.
  18. Boozha

    Boozha I need me some PIE!

    Then no freedom exists because the possibility of it being violated. That's not a reasonable perspective.
  19. DarkJello

    DarkJello I need me some PIE!

    The family is the functional unit of society. I NEVER said anything about non-traditional vs traditional families. Strong families = a strong nation. USA fams are weakening.
  20. DarkJello

    DarkJello I need me some PIE!

    If guilty, I sincerely apologize. Maybe all the violence in your avatar is scaring away some of the younger folk. ;)

    That is a very good point. The "why" is implied. But I should have directly asked that too. +14 to you.

Share This Page