Abortions vs. Guns

[Dukasaur]

My daughter wanted to become a welder, but she didn't push hard enough and became a waitress.

Of course, now she's a waitress in a five-star and makes more money than most welders, but still....

[tzor]

Not true at all -- at least on the gun control side. Those wanting to control guns and the few who want to do away with guns entirely each really do want to control violence. Those on the "ban no guns" side don't see that limiting guns will limit violence, either feel it just won't help or feel it may actually cause harm. But even then, not that the most vocal group, the NRA is officially accepting limits for the worst of convicted criminals and the insane. So, even they are not truly saying "no guns" (I guess the alternate position is that even most anti-gun folks are OK with police and the army having them), though there are certainly some "outliers" who take the more extreme positions.

I see this an other problem. I don't think there is anyone on the pro-gun side who wants to see criminals with guns. To use another example, it is as though MADD (Mother's against Drunk Driving) would think they would solve the problem of drunk related fatalities by preventing sober people from driving cars. None of the proposed solutions keeps weapons from the hands of criminals and terrorists. Therefore, not only are they not effective, they waste the time that needs to be addressed to actually solve the problem. Then to add insult to injury they allow the criminals and terrorists even more power by giving them the illegal monopoly on deadly force, encouraging them to get more weapons.

There are studies/statistics that do show these things limit particular kinds of violence.. domestic violence and such.

I'd love to see the actual details of these studies. I find it hard to imagine that domestic violence against women increases when those women are packing heat. Just saying.

This is the problem that gets lost in the debate. The real advantage of guns is empowerment. History is filled with examples of those who want to oppress others who started their path by taking those weapons away from those whey wanted to oppressed and this applies even if the oppressors are gang members, or potential rapists, or even terrorists.

Of course a gun isn't always the best solution. But it is one "tool" in the toolbox that keeps a potential oppressor from thinking "might makes right."

[PLAYER57832]

Not true at all -- at least on the gun control side. Those wanting to control guns and the few who want to do away with guns entirely each really do want to control violence. Those on the "ban no guns" side don't see that limiting guns will limit violence, either feel it just won't help or feel it may actually cause harm. But even then, not that the most vocal group, the NRA is officially accepting limits for the worst of convicted criminals and the insane. So, even they are not truly saying "no guns" (I guess the alternate position is that even most anti-gun folks are OK with police and the army having them), though there are certainly some "outliers" who take the more extreme positions.

I see this an other problem. I don't think there is anyone on the pro-gun side who wants to see criminals with guns. To use another example, it is as though MADD (Mother's against Drunk Driving) would think they would solve the problem of drunk related fatalities by preventing sober people from driving cars. None of the proposed solutions keeps weapons from the hands of criminals and terrorists. Therefore, not only are they not effective, they waste the time that needs to be addressed to actually solve the problem. Then to add insult to injury they allow the criminals and terrorists even more power by giving them the illegal monopoly on deadly force, encouraging them to get more weapons.

There are studies/statistics that do show these things limit particular kinds of violence.. domestic violence and such.

I'd love to see the actual details of these studies. I find it hard to imagine that domestic violence against women increases when those women are packing heat. Just saying.

First, I have said all along that the data is inconsistent and not enough to prove anything. The studies I referred to were guns in the household, not on the person. Even women who regularly carry guns don't generally do so in their own houses. What I know of carrying guns has to do with some self defense training I have had that shows pretty clearly unless you actually have some very specific training, well.. things don't go like most people think they might in any regard. I am not going to get into that more because, among other issues, its something you have to be in the training to see. and understand. Also, in most of these classes we have to agree not to discuss specifics because the more the techniques we do learn are spread, the less effective they become.

This is the problem that gets lost in the debate. The real advantage of guns is empowerment. History is filled with examples of those who want to oppress others who started their path by taking those weapons away from those whey wanted to oppressed and this applies even if the oppressors are gang members, or potential rapists, or even terrorists.

Of course a gun isn't always the best solution. But it is one "tool" in the toolbox that keeps a potential oppressor from thinking "might makes right."

That is more complex than you let on, but definitely... having guns is of real use against authorities that overstep, but that is very different from individual violence

[2dimes]

Right, social services should have taken you from your parents because they gave you wine when you were an infant.

Why has koolbacon not informed us of the distance to trout fishing from his cabana?

[KoolBak]

[2dimes]

That one will probably be taken serious too.

What about the trout? Though you're probably right if you're thinking we won't come by that soon.

[KoolBak]

Trout's tasty....spoiled however by my buddy that has a commercial boat moored 24/7 in Depoe Bay...they only want salmon and tuna but get tons of bottom fish (seabass, halibut, etc), much of which which they give to me...mmm mmm mmm. Love that whitefish...and I don't have to do a damn thing!

[tzor]

First, I have said all along that the data is inconsistent and not enough to prove anything. The studies I referred to were guns in the household, not on the person. Even women who regularly carry guns don't generally do so in their own houses. What I know of carrying guns has to do with some self defense training I have had that shows pretty clearly unless you actually have some very specific training,

I'll agree the situation is complex because there is no clear data. But is the solution simply taking away guns, or providing more information and options to those who are willing to seek that option. Education is key. Unfortunately a lot of people think the best way for a woman to prevent rape is to vomit and pee.

By the way, think about why the second amendment was proposed. If you take the "spirit" of the second amendment then there is a right, if not a duty, to ensure that all the citizens of the several states have access to the proper way to defend themselves, which also includes things that do not include guns. Mind you, back then, no nation ever banned self defense classes.

That is more complex than you let on, but definitely... having guns is of real use against authorities that overstep, but that is very different from individual violence

It's not just a question of authorities. That's actually the last step in the process. A critical first step is the authorities not wanted to taking direct action allows "mob rule" to do the function of ensuring dependency on the state. There are many cities in the United States where this is currently the case.

[2dimes]

...and I don't have to do a damn thing!

I think you're missing the point of me coming there to hunt and fish. I was hoping to feed my kids those birds, rice and fish. Perhaps some other varmints like rabbit.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

I see this an other problem. I don't think there is anyone on the pro-gun side who wants to see criminals with guns. To use another example, it is as though MADD (Mother's against Drunk Driving) would think they would solve the problem of drunk related fatalities by preventing sober people from driving cars. None of the proposed solutions keeps weapons from the hands of criminals and terrorists. Therefore, not only are they not effective, they waste the time that needs to be addressed to actually solve the problem. Then to add insult to injury they allow the criminals and terrorists even more power by giving them the illegal monopoly on deadly force, encouraging them to get more weapons.

We have examples in the uk now of companies banning their employees from driving at work.

So in effect, the easiest way to deal with drunk driving is for everyone to stop driving. If the public transport network is there, why not?

[Symmetry]

I see this an other problem. I don't think there is anyone on the pro-gun side who wants to see criminals with guns. To use another example, it is as though MADD (Mother's against Drunk Driving) would think they would solve the problem of drunk related fatalities by preventing sober people from driving cars. None of the proposed solutions keeps weapons from the hands of criminals and terrorists. Therefore, not only are they not effective, they waste the time that needs to be addressed to actually solve the problem. Then to add insult to injury they allow the criminals and terrorists even more power by giving them the illegal monopoly on deadly force, encouraging them to get more weapons.

We have examples in the uk now of companies banning their employees from driving at work.

So in effect, the easiest way to deal with drunk driving is for everyone to stop driving. If the public transport network is there, why not?

That's interesting, can you provide an example?

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Jacobs

[rishaed]

I see this an other problem. I don't think there is anyone on the pro-gun side who wants to see criminals with guns. To use another example, it is as though MADD (Mother's against Drunk Driving) would think they would solve the problem of drunk related fatalities by preventing sober people from driving cars. None of the proposed solutions keeps weapons from the hands of criminals and terrorists. Therefore, not only are they not effective, they waste the time that needs to be addressed to actually solve the problem. Then to add insult to injury they allow the criminals and terrorists even more power by giving them the illegal monopoly on deadly force, encouraging them to get more weapons.

We have examples in the uk now of companies banning their employees from driving at work.

So in effect, the easiest way to deal with drunk driving is for everyone to stop driving. If the public transport network is there, why not?

Um.. You still have to have someone drive the busses and other things... Also TIme related issues. Its simply not practical

[Symmetry]

Captain wing nut's suggestion is crackers?

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Um.. You still have to have someone drive the busses and other things... Also TIme related issues. Its simply not practical

Its quite practical. But yes you do need to live your life slightly differently.

There is a culture of safety in engineering firms that isnt present elsewhere, and these sorts of initatives arent met with such negativity. The reality is that making a simple change makes things much safer, so why not do so? Because it is inconvenient in the short term till you have adjusted. The anology isnt far different to the gun situation, its inconvinient in the short term so change must be bad.

[Symmetry]

So now that you've been unable, unwilling or selt-defeating in your replies, would it not be better for you to create a separate thread?

[rishaed]

Um.. You still have to have someone drive the busses and other things... Also TIme related issues. Its simply not practical

Its quite practical. But yes you do need to live your life slightly differently.

There is a culture of safety in engineering firms that isnt present elsewhere, and these sorts of initatives arent met with such negativity. The reality is that making a simple change makes things much safer, so why not do so? Because it is inconvenient in the short term till you have adjusted. The analogy isnt far different to the gun situation, its inconvinient in the short term so change must be bad.

Lets put it this way... For large crowded cities it can be practical. However the UK is 40x smaller than the US. We have 11 states that are either equal to or larger in area than the UK. Alaska is seven times the size of the UK. It is simply impractical to force everyone not to have a car and very, very expensive to build all the necessary infrastructure necessary for what you are asking. The US is also 3 times the size of EUROPE. My state is about 40% smaller than the UK and has 1/10th of the population. My town is only 3000 people, and the amount of everyone from an area of three towns and quite a large area is including staff about the same at the high school. There is no bus that goes through, no train that stops nearby. The only trains we do get is freight, and they go right on through. The nearest larger town with over 10k is between 20-30 minutes by car, and between an 1hr to 1.5hrs by bike. My university is over 200 miles away from my hometown, and there is no form of public transportation apart from maybe hitchhiking that would get you there without a car. Also the other reason why it is impractical here, SHOPPING. I need to buy food and other things, and while using the bus is viable, it is neither time friendly or easy. Because I neither have time to go shopping every day, or can spend over an hour buying groceries and then waiting for a bus to bring me back home, I usually have at least 6 bags of groceries. They dig into my hands, are liable to break, and do not make good traveling companions. There are many reasons why public transportation works better in the UK and Europe, but these are my main points about them. So when I say it is not practical I am speaking from a standpoint of having experienced both sides of the coin. Banning Driving to Work does not solve the problem of drunk driving. Driving while AT work (While I'm not sure what this entails) should not affect drunk driving either because who in their right mind would need to be drinking right before going to work? Also did I mention that busses require drivers? And Truckers are how you get your food at your store, One way or another someone has to be driving a vehicle, which will bring in human error. Your suggestion, while interesting is simply not practical for many reasons.

[PLAYER57832]

First, I have said all along that the data is inconsistent and not enough to prove anything. The studies I referred to were guns in the household, not on the person. Even women who regularly carry guns don't generally do so in their own houses. What I know of carrying guns has to do with some self defense training I have had that shows pretty clearly unless you actually have some very specific training,

I'll agree the situation is complex because there is no clear data. But is the solution simply taking away guns, or providing more information and options to those who are willing to seek that option.

I don't think taking guns away solves much of anything. Information does.

That is more complex than you let on, but definitely... having guns is of real use against authorities that overstep, but that is very different from individual violence

It's not just a question of authorities. That's actually the last step in the process. A critical first step is the authorities not wanted to taking direct action allows "mob rule" to do the function of ensuring dependency on the state. There are many cities in the United States where this is currently the case.[/quote] There is a fine line between "mob rule" and "democracy". But you did hit on a key part. If people don't trust authorities, they will go their own route. That, ironically enough, too often makes authorities resort to almost "knee jerk" "crackdowns". This is what is the most destructive part of recent political rhetoric. Its all about "them" -- this remote entity either getting in everyone's way or needing to step in. Few people are talking about the real fact that each and everyONE of us has a piece to play. Democracy fails, not because folks in charge screw up, but because everyone else stands back and points fingers instead of each doing his/her part.... and I mean EVERYBODY.

[tzor]

There is a fine line between "mob rule" and "democracy".

OH there has to be a joke in there somewhere. But I'm not really interested in discussing the role of Sam Adams and how he used "mob rule" in order to further the causes of "American Democracy."

But you did hit on a key part. If people don't trust authorities, they will go their own route. That, ironically enough, too often makes authorities resort to almost "knee jerk" "crackdowns".

Here in New York City, we already have ONE DEAD PERSON as a result of the moronic crackdown of selling loose cigarettes in order to avoid paying the insane taxes. That person is DEAD. For what? Selling a cigarette?

In the United States, we have government "of the people, by the people and for the people." If the "authorities" are not ultimately for the people. If they don't have the consent of the people, then they are illegitimate.

This is a two way street. Sadly it rarely is these days.

[Symmetry]

There is a fine line between "mob rule" and "democracy".

OH there has to be a joke in there somewhere. But I'm not really interested in discussing the role of Sam Adams and how he used "mob rule" in order to further the causes of "American Democracy."

But you did hit on a key part. If people don't trust authorities, they will go their own route. That, ironically enough, too often makes authorities resort to almost "knee jerk" "crackdowns".

Here in New York City, we already have ONE DEAD PERSON as a result of the moronic crackdown of selling loose cigarettes in order to avoid paying the insane taxes. That person is DEAD. For what? Selling a cigarette?

In the United States, we have government "of the people, by the people and for the people." If the "authorities" are not ultimately for the people. If they don't have the consent of the people, then they are illegitimate.

This is a two way street. Sadly it rarely is these days.

Which government do you think of as legitimate?

[tzor]

Which government do you think of as legitimate?

Oh lots of them ... the people get the government they deserve.

I'm not going to call any government a "bastard."

No matter who the government's parents were.

[Symmetry]

Which government do you think of as legitimate?

Oh lots of them ... the people get the government they deserve.

I'm not going to call any government a "bastard."

No matter who the government's parents were.

Name, say, 10.

[tzor]

Name, say, 10.

Name 10 what?

[Symmetry]

Name, say, 10.

Name 10 what?

Governments you think are legit.

[PLAYER57832]

Um.. You still have to have someone drive the buses and other things... Also time related issues. Its simply not practical

Its quite practical. But yes you do need to live your life slightly differently.

There is a culture of safety in engineering firms that isn't present elsewhere, and these sorts of initiatives aren't met with such negativity. The reality is that making a simple change makes things much safer, so why not do so? Because it is inconvenient in the short term till you have adjusted. The anology isnt far different to the gun situation, its inconvenient in the short term so change must be bad.

No, not at all the same, except that in both cases, you assume the population is heavily urban and of a similar mindset.

Although the US could do a lot better on mass transport, it will never be like much of Europe because we are far, far more spread out and rural than in Europe. This is not fictional imagination, it is reality. Similarly, while hunting is a rich man's sport.. and just that, in Europe. Here in the US, it is very much what puts meat on some people's tables. Understand, I don't even completely mean those who hunt, though many really do depend it for food( we certainly do depend on that meat for our winter meals). I include the many people who sell sporting equipment, from the local gunsmith and gun stores to stores offering hunting apparel. Even if many who buy the "stuff" don't go hunting, or maybe hunt once or twice (and, yes perhaps on a game farm as opposed to a family farm or federal/state lands), without the "idea" of the "sportsman", the allure of those purchases would be heavily diminished. This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with violence, it is pure sport.

A better analogy is things like speed limits, limits on size and safety requirements for cars, not drunk driving. If you want to compare guns to drunk driving, then first note that more people are killed every year from drunks than any weapon. That said, the comparison is that people who drink too much should not have more alcohol. We already have background checks for guns. Some people suggest breathalyzers in bars. In some college towns, at least, that is sort of the culture. People hand their keys to someone who won't let them go to anyone who fails the breathalyzer. That would be somewhat similar to the requirements to have background checks and a few other limits on who can buy guns.

But, the real point here is that you have to look at the specifics, not rely upon analogies, particularly when you don't really seem to even "get" the basic problems from the beginning.

The basic problem? That too many people don't want to distinguish between sport and violence. Also, too many people want the easy "quick fix", rather than the truly complex, but real solutions that involve things like real community involvement, job training, community involved policing (much more than just neighborhood watches) and plain people who care about and are willing to act within their own communities, instead of just pointing fingers.

Understanding WHY people don't already do those things takes work, patience and some research. Some of the research is yet to be done and must be funded ... until it is, we are just guessing.