Don't Read to Your Children

[Blarghagh]

How could you impose that disadvantage upon all the other children like that, you monster?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

Clicked link. Doesn't work.

 

Many have tried to click it, but it just hasn't been properly implemented yet.

It's like Age of Decadence, perpetual beta.

[Longknife]

I would not go so far as to wish for anarchy but Volo is dead on the money on one note. Your government does not love you, it does not want to help you, and it is not your friend. It's motivation is only self perpetration. If they day ever comes where the liberty of the people becomes a threat to that then it will become a threat to the people. I will not live in a country where the people have no countermeasure against that.  

 

If guns are ever outlawed and confiscated in the US it does not necessarily mean horror will follow. But if it does the people will be helpless to stop it. Either way I won't be alive to see it.

 

The real answer is far more depressing.

 

The government is designed to help it's citizens and to provide cornerstone services for the betterment of the community. The government does care, but government is where people with emotions, personalities and unique lives conflict with attempting to quantify and calculate everything for maximum productivity. A bureocrat is one of the most depressing types of people you can encounter because a bureocrat is dead inside. This is a person who possibly got into law because they sincerely wanted to help people, perhaps didn't make the cut for lawyer or another such job, and now they find themselves in a job where their function is to be a cog in a machine. A bureocrat is not allowed to think for themselves, is not allowed to feel, and has to follow regulations. If you go to a government office and tell them that whatever government application they've assigned to you doesn't apply well and makes your life a living hell, the person telling you "too bad, bring me the proper forms" has to watch how the government fails every single day of their lives; they know damned well you're right, but they're powerless to do anything. They are the front line, they are the ones that know all too well that there is a limitation to how prepared the government can be, how you can never truly neatly pack an entire population into different divisions of government assistance or the like, and they are the ones that know firsthand that at some point, you as a person a little more than a number in a ledger to your government, IE if some government plan pleases 70% of the population and you're unfortunate enough to be in the 30%, tough, the government is incapable of providing sympathy in this regard and thinks logically, gladly settling for the fact that 70% is a majority.

 

Don't ever have the attitude that a bureocrat, politician or lawyer never had the desire to help people. They did, and perhaps still do. What's going on and what you guys are discussing is that....when you work with government, you hit an impasse where emotional thinking and logical thinking conflict. Both are highly important. Both should be valued. Emotional thinking tells you that you are responsible for the well-being of your people, and as such, if that guy over there can't afford food or a home, you need to provide for him. Logical thinking tells you that while a plan isn't perfect, it'll help 85% of the community, and 15% are then blatantly hindered by their government. Bureocrats (again as an example) are so jaded because they WANT to find the solution and they WANT to find the balance, but experience shows them time and time again that they have to settle for the logical choice. But that's just it: they're still settling. They're still leaving some portion of the population to fend for themselves, perhaps even harmed by the government. But a bureocrat is powerless. They do not get a voice, they do not get an opinion. If they attempt either, they'll quickly be fired and replaced. Bureocrats are a paradox for me, as I have both deepest sympathies for them and absolute disgust as I personally cannot imagine myself selling out like that, even IF it were my only option to make ends meet. I imagine in a practical sense, they cling to all of the good cases as a way to convince themselves they're still doing good work.

 

 

To me, hating the government is easy. This quote comes to mind:

 

 

 

 

 

It's very easy to point out the government's flaws and to highlight all the atrocities a government might commit. What's hard is suggesting a better, working alternative. The very reason bureocrats are so depressed is because they are left stuck there, WATCHING the failures first-hand while knowing of no answer or alternative to make things better.

 

My first experience in Germany? I haven't mentioned this before, but I was actually ditched here. My father was never there for me, and when I was 16-18 (occured over time) he got the brilliant idea to actually, yknow, be a father. He saw the costs of raising a child and ran away, and for some reason he insisted he wanted me out of Germany, to the point where I was left with nothing when I refused (going back to the USA was not an option as I'm disabled and my healthcare bills are ridiculous in the USA, not to mention I was a student ready to study and university in the USA is expensive too). A friend of my father's who saw what an ass he was (as so many have) helped me out and tried to set me up with government support. Despite being German and a student, through some weird convolution of my situation as a dual citizen, I did not qualify for any student aid. Weirdly, I could qualify for unemployment, even though it was clear that I would not be getting a job anytime soon. I mention this only as an example of how imperfect governments can be. A government is prepared for case A, B, C, and D. If you do not fall into one of those categories, it's going to shoehorn you into one of them as hard as it can, usually to your own detriment. As a disabled dual-citizen with very limited German records, I can safely say I'm a case X, and bureocracies are a nightmare for me.

 

If the government "turns on the people," it is not out of a blind desire for self-preservation, but because the government is also aware of all the things it's done right and believes it can still do good. It's holding out and hoping to convince people it'll do better. Please name a police state where the government is honestly downright oppressive towards it's people, and I think you'll find they're all dictatorships or function as such. (aka they claim democracy but are functionally a dictatorship) That's the result of a spoiled brat of a leader who does care about self-preservation, with him and the government being synonymous.

 

 

  As far as weapon laws go, the USA is a god damned hellhole in this regard and needs it's toys taken away. It's very simple: you get dangerous toys, and when you can't use them properly, they get taken away. I do not worry about guns in Czech Republic, Switzerland, Germany or Portugal because none of these countries go bat**** crazy with them. The USA does. What needs to happen is, slowly over time weapons need to be outlawed unless under specific circumstances or extensive training and backround checks. It can't happen overnight as there are a lot of illegal weapons in the USA to address, but as it stands now, USA herpderps hard and can't figure out why an M16 and a 9mm aren't quite the same thing. The USA, for whatever reason, has a toxic gun culture that results in insanely high gun violence as opposed to other gun-wielding countries. Let's not point fingers at those guys and talk about how good they are and insist the USA can be that good too; no, clearly it can't, and we'd be stupid not to restrict guns more as a result.

 

   In return? You do what Germany does: lock the police officer's pistol in place and actually train them. Where I study? The police station has attended some of our lectures in law, specifically criminology (I would highly recommend for ANY law enforcement official as it teaches empathy and understanding for the criminal) or important lectures by the criminal law professors. It was very weird the first time to go in, take a seat where I normally do, look to my right and see a freaking blonde girl in her police officer's uniform calmly sitting there ready to hear the lecture, giving me a light smile when she realizes I'm staring all confused, but it's kinda cool. It's nice to see them interacting with the public by simply attending the lecture like any civilian would, and it's nice to see them be like "yo I didn't catch that can I see your notes," especially since they do not have to worry about passing an exam, so their interest is purely genuine interest in learning what the police station wants them to learn. In Germany a cop will have a minimum of three year's training and they need to have at least a basic understanding of the laws; mind you Germany's "basic" is world's more professional than the USA's basic. I have a cop friend who has taken many of the same exams I've taken, for the most part only lagging behind on Civil law or things like Worker's rights.

 

  And to top this off? **** this "the cop is not expected to put himself in harms way" bull**** that the USA has. No, screw that dude. You signed up for the job, YOU take the risk. You would never hear a firefighter say "I fear for my own life if I enter that building, therefore I won't." Likewise, you don't get to shoot a suspect "cuz scurred." In Germany, the pistols cops carry are actively locked in place. AKA, if I were to somehow get a firearm, I would have a clear advantage vs, a cop because he needs several seconds to unlock his holster. This is exactly how it should be. You know what the result is? Friendly cops who've learned to solve problems with words rather than aggression and displays of dominance, and none of that stupid ego trip crap where a cop is fancying himself some hero on a TV show as he approaches you or your car with his hand on his gun like he's Quickdraw ****ing McGraw. The USA employs absolute ****ing clowns and idiots with power fantasies as cops. Honestly, just ****ing train them properly. Screen them. Show them this is a practical job and not Hollywood. It's not that hard. But no, you guys have the NRA insisting blind people should own guns too, and apparently it's really ****ing hard to figure out the NRA might be bias here, and thus any propaganda about how we need guns to protect us from the police or it's impossible to improve and limit the cops aswell just gets eaten up lickety split.

   Side-note? Please name famous violent protestors revolutionaries who got what they wanted, now compare this to the percent of peaceful protestors who got what they wanted. Holy ****, it's like peaceful protests work or something, amirite?

 

 

 

Overall as I read this wall of text I just wrote above? You all need more empathy. Don't just point fingers at your opposition's failures, try to understand the why of things. Try to understand why things might be as they are. By all means be very critical and provide constructive criticism, but don't go demonizing groups you don't agree with like they're some monstrosity, because when you do so, you're turning them into some mythical beast that you're making no effort to actually understand. You wanna bring about positive change? Ask yourself the why of things, and that means asking why things are the way they are and why things and issues you don't like exist.

[Namutree]

 

  As far as weapon laws go, the USA is a god damned hellhole in this regard and needs it's toys taken away. It's very simple: you get dangerous toys, and when you can't use them properly, they get taken away.

Waiting for some of the other libertarian/conservative minded people besides myself to notice this post. This is gonna be good.

 

 

 

  And to top this off? **** this "the cop is not expected to put himself in harms way" bull**** that the USA has. No, screw that dude. You signed up for the job, YOU take the risk. You would never hear a firefighter say "I fear for my own life if I enter that building, therefore I won't." Likewise, you don't get to shoot a suspect "cuz scurred." In Germany, the pistols cops carry are actively locked in place. AKA, if I were to somehow get a firearm, I would have a clear advantage vs, a cop because he needs several seconds to unlock his holster. This is exactly how it should be. You know what the result is? Friendly cops who've learned to solve problems with words rather than aggression and displays of dominance, and none of that stupid ego trip crap where a cop is fancying himself some hero on a TV show as he approaches you or your car with his hand on his gun like he's Quickdraw ****ing McGraw. The USA employs absolute ****ing clowns and idiots with power fantasies as cops. Honestly, just ****ing train them properly. Screen them. Show them this is a practical job and not Hollywood. It's not that hard. But no, you guys have the NRA insisting blind people should own guns too, and apparently it's really ****ing hard to figure out the NRA might be bias here, and thus any propaganda about how we need guns to protect us from the police or it's impossible to improve and limit the cops aswell just gets eaten up lickety split.

 

How we train our cops definitely needs to be reformed.

[Longknife]

 

 

  As far as weapon laws go, the USA is a god damned hellhole in this regard and needs it's toys taken away. It's very simple: you get dangerous toys, and when you can't use them properly, they get taken away.

Waiting for some of the other libertarian/conservative minded people besides myself to notice this post. This is gonna be good.

 

 

Well I'm sorry but it's true.

 

I have encountered quite a few rational, respectable gun advocates who've been up for some decent debate, but the common trend is that they'll often point to other countries with guns and say how it's proof a state that allows citizens to carry guns can work. Yes, it can, but for whatever reason, it clearly doesn't work in the USA. It's something in the culture, likely related to how Hollywood romanticizes violents and makes it cool. I'm not saying this like "let's censor Hollywood" because Hollywood has every right to produce whatever it wants, and obviously plenty of OTHER countries watch Hollywood movies too and don't go nuts. The USA however is a specialty case. I've met plenty of black kids who purposefully dress, talk and walk as gangsta as possible because they think it makes them cool and just like the rappers, and sure enough those very same kids might experiment with petty theft to feel like "a real thug." Police officers in the USA, you can find so damned many of them that think they're freaking cowboys or Dirty Harry. It's freaking VISUAL in the way they walk and conduct themselves around people. Everyone is living out some fantasy, no one's in touch with reality, and even more responsible gun owners I've met have not been above saying "WATCH THIS IT'LL BE COOL" while holding an automatic weapon in each hand and lighting up a paper target. That to me screams "I like feeling like a movie protagonist" and yes, I do think it's part of the problem. Again not calling for censorship, just saying it is what it is. (also side note, I find it interesting research suggests violent video games might deter violence whereas violent movies might encourage it. Guessing it's largely because video games involve you yourself in the violence so that you feel satisfied, whereas movies do not) To top that off, the NRA is not helpful to the situation. It's just an obviously bias group that doesn't have safety concerns in mind. Yes of course it and it's members look out for their own safety, but they fail to acknowledge that not every gun owner is safe and that conditioning the laws based on the best case scenario doesn't do a whole lot for the lackluster ones. I get it dude; your hobby is at risk of being outlawed to a degree and that really sucks. You do have to wonder at some point if your hobby of choice is more important than all the lives lost to gun accidents, criminal activity etc.

 

 

At any rate, even if you wish to argue that people have a right to own pistols (fair imo), I see no reason why random yahoos should own M16's. You would never feasibly need an M16 in real life. It's expensive, the ammo can't be cheap, and if you've got a burglar in your house? Show him a freaking pistol, he will probably run. You do not need an M16 to get the point across.

 

 

But as I said, the issue is two-fold: there are paranoid people who think the government or police are out to get them, and there are cops that are blatantly flawed in their work, either via racism, overzealousness with their gun themselves or the entire job is a massive power trip for them. Address both issues simultaneously to showcase to people that this isn't about taking power away from the people so the government can oppress them, it's about safety concerns and the fact that....can anyone here name a SINGLE news story of civil defense where the situation warranted a "thank god that civilian owned a fully automatic military-grade rifle!" I'm sure there's a story somewhere of a thug with a pistol being driven off by another thug with a pistol, but I've never heard of a story where the civilian with the gun NEEDED his fully automatic weapon with 20 bullets in the cartridge or else every innocent person in the area would've wound up dead. Likewise, does the USA realize that the vast majority of the world is living without firearms for civil defense, and lo and behold none of us have been enslaved by our oppressive police state governments yet? Hard to believe I know, given how Merkel's always throwing up that gang sign of hers when she speaks. Clearly a provokation towards her people.

 

But yeah, living in two different countries gives you strong criticisms of each. If I were to criticize Germany, I'd be quite to criticize their lousy television, how negative and dickish their culture is in general, how many freaking bureocracies and regulations there are for every little things, and several other things. But the police? Germany has the USA beat so easily here. Three years training, decent familiarity with law studies, guns locked in place and a preference for solving problems by talking to people rather than treating them all like thugs who need to be put in their place. Decent police training would do wonders for this, as the problem is that currently the US police force (and military aswell) attracts all kinds of nutjobs who are after nothing more than a power trip or an excuse to be violent. Make those nutjobs go through decent training that's both boring for them and makes it crystal clear this is a practical job and not some glorified scene from a Hollywood movie, and I promise you police brutality will plummet.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Longknife

[Meshugger]

Maybe only americans are culturally predisposed to freedom and thus the reason why there's relatively so little gun violence there (if you take out minorities like blacks out of the equation). The germans sure do not have the inclination to it. Imagine arming that country with 100 million guns or rifles, yikes!

[Longknife]

Maybe only americans are culturally predisposed to freedom and thus the reason why there's relatively so little gun violence there (if you take out minorities like blacks out of the equation). The germans sure do not have the inclination to it. Imagine arming that country with 100 million guns or rifles, yikes!

 

 

While I get this was a humorous comment, Germany has essentially "banned" it's own army. Of course we have one, but our military budget is pathetic. Germany's defense is now it's economy and it's value as a trade partner; you attack Germany, you will have over half of the western world on your ass. (which btw, applies to the USA as well, if the USA could only see that)

 

Germany totally has...."anger management issues" where it's got this fabulous habit of getting bored and declaring a World War....and it's addressing that. The military budget is pathetic, the culture means that if you say "I'm in the military" here in Germany then you're kind of frowned upon, and it's a culture where if you suggested giving them all guns or mailed everyone a gun, they'd freak out and think it was insanity.

 

Likewise, I am not suggesting that Germans or any other group are somehow naturally more "morally correct" or the like, I am merely highlighting that if you compare the gun incidents in the USA to another country that allows gun ownership such as the Czech Republic, Switzerland, and Scandinavia, then you'll see a ridiculous difference. Could this be a result of those countries having more thorough screening and registry processes for owning weapons? Perhaps, but take a look at this: http://www.gunsandammo.com/network-topics/culture-politics-network/best-countries-gun-owners/

 

Each of those countries, the text will list what percent of civilians are estimated to own guns. Switzerland and Czech Republic are ranked 2nd and 3rd on their list of gun-friendly countries, and they have ownership rates between 16% (Czech) and 29% (Swiss). The USA has a whopping 43% as it's estimate. Clearly, there is also something going on culturally.

 

Either way, evidence would suggest more gun regulation is in order, would it not?

[Meshugger]

Well, the Czech and the Swiss don't exactly have founding fathers that emphasized on having guns against tyrannical government. Neither do they have long history of pioneers going into the next frontiers with nothing but guns to protect them. Oh, and what comes first: the culture or the laws and regulations that govern it?

 

I have no answers. Well, except Hurlshot is doing the right thing with his kids.

[Longknife]

Well, the Czech and the Swiss don't exactly have founding fathers that emphasized on having guns against tyrannical government. Neither do they have long history of pioneers going into the next frontiers with nothing but guns to protect them. Oh, and what comes first: the culture or the laws and regulations that govern it?

 

I have no answers. Well, except Hurlshot is doing the right thing with his kids.

 

Which is horrendously inobjective to cling to. Those days are long gone, we are not pioneers in strange, unknown territories inhabited by wild animals. We live in remote suburbs, bored out of our minds safe as safe can be. The same logic that guides that way of thinking is the same logic that leads me to encounter people who will tell me I'm an inferior human being because I was born disabled, blissfully unaware that if society were given a choice between saving the life of Stephen Hawking or saving that guy's life, he would be dropped in a second flat, because disabilities are no longer the hinderance they may have once provided.

 

  Likewise, to cite the founding fathers is to fail to see that what they wanted was specific for that context, with England as a realistic threat and rifles being limited in strength. They could not have known or expected that someday we'd see fully automatic rifles. They could never have known the politics of today, where - I promise you - were the USA to become a police state, everyone and their mother would use it as an excuse to "liberate" the USA to get their hands on it's natural resources. They could not have been able to practically imagine where a line should be drawn. What they were getting across - the why of their stance - is that people deserve a form of self-defense; how much, they never specified. And if the founding fathers adhered to something, does this mean we have to blindly follow it no matter what? They were brilliant men deserving of respect, no doubt, but this does not mean they're without flaw. Einstein and Hawking have both been wrong, the founding fathers are no exception. If the founding fathers suggested we eat dirt to stay healthy, does that mean we all need to? Have reverence for the specific ideas named (such as freedom of speech and religion), not for the men spouting the ideas.

 

 

And wtf the culture comes first. The laws are designed to appeal to that culture. The issue at hand is that the culture the USA has now is woefully inobjective and equates "no more fully automatic assault rifles" with "THEY WANT US TO BE HELPLESS SO THEY CAN OPPRESS US." Again, I ask for a case where someone owning an assault rifle specifically was what prevented a crime/deaths of innocents. A pistol is good enough.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Longknife

[213374U]

Cato the Younger would be proud.

[JadedWolf]

Speaking from somewhere where there's no gun culture, I think it's not just a matter of banning guns. Over here, I don't think we don't have guns is because we're not allowed to. It's also just that.., People just don't have much desire to own guns. If tomorrow suddenly everyone would be allowed guns I don't think there'd be a long queue of people in front of stores shouting triumphantly "Yes, we can finally have guns! I have waited for this moment all my life."

 

Then again over here people tend to live in urban areas, very close to other people. And we don't have a real culture of no go areas where white middle class sort of people would never want to be (not to the extent as in the U.S. anyway). I can imagine if you lived in the middle of nowhere you'd feel the need for some protection, even if it's just to keep the critters out.

 

But is the main reason people in the U.S. want to have guns really to be able to defend their freedom from the government? I always thought it was to shoot that burglar in the face Charles Bronson style if he dared to show his face near your property.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Maybe only americans are culturally predisposed to freedom and thus the reason why there's relatively so little gun violence there (if you take out minorities like blacks out of the equation). The germans sure do not have the inclination to it. Imagine arming that country with 100 million guns or rifles, yikes!

There's like 20 murders(of blacks) per 100000 blacks, so it's not exactly an epidemic there either.

 

Most anti-weapons people are making a big deal over nothing.

[Longknife]

But is the main reason people in the U.S. want to have guns really to be able to defend their freedom from the government? I always thought it was to shoot that burglar in the face Charles Bronson style if he dared to show his face near your property.

 

 

It's multiple possible reasons, such as:

 

1) A hobby for some. They go to the shooting range and try out different guns

2) Basic home protection. They worry about burglars and want a defense

3) Paranoia about the government or the like

4) Iunno I'm sure some people simply feel cool for owning a gun and don't actually want much usage beyond that

 

 

Also, not all of the USA lives in the middle of nowhere. The Midwest is just a part of the USA that would feel perhaps a tad alien to a European because the midwest is a part of the US where pioneers said "LOL HOLY CRAP LOOK AT ALL THIS LAND" and built their houses and neighborhoods as liberally as possible. The result is that good job pioneers, it now takes me 20 minutes by car to hit the nearest supermarket. The West Coast and Northeast are largely more familiar to what Europe is like and the Southeast can be a mix of both.

[Longknife]

 

There's like 20 murders(of blacks) per 100000 blacks, so it's not exactly an epidemic there either.

 

Most anti-weapons people are making a big deal over nothing.

 

 

 

You call this nothing?:

 

http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2014/03/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-the-u-s-to-rest-of-the-world/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

(for number two, I don't know how familiar you are with Honduras, but being beaten out by them is not exactly something surprising. Many central american countries are currently rather violent, El Salvador included)

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

4.5 deaths per 100000 isn't that much.

 

If you're an American, you're more likely to die from obesity than being shot.

[213374U]

Two words: car crashes. Cars are dangerous toys. You obviously cannot seem to stop killing yourselves (and others) with these deadly contraptions, so the state has a moral mandate to protect you from yourselves by taking your cars away. This will also solve the obesity epidemic, so it's a win-win situation.

 

#watertightlogic

Edited May 12, 2015 by 213374U

[Meshugger]

 

Well, the Czech and the Swiss don't exactly have founding fathers that emphasized on having guns against tyrannical government. Neither do they have long history of pioneers going into the next frontiers with nothing but guns to protect them. Oh, and what comes first: the culture or the laws and regulations that govern it?

 

I have no answers. Well, except Hurlshot is doing the right thing with his kids.

 

Which is horrendously inobjective to cling to. Those days are long gone, we are not pioneers in strange, unknown territories inhabited by wild animals. We live in remote suburbs, bored out of our minds safe as safe can be. The same logic that guides that way of thinking is the same logic that leads me to encounter people who will tell me I'm an inferior human being because I was born disabled, blissfully unaware that if society were given a choice between saving the life of Stephen Hawking or saving that guy's life, he would be dropped in a second flat, because disabilities are no longer the hinderance they may have once provided.

 

  Likewise, to cite the founding fathers is to fail to see that what they wanted was specific for that context, with England as a realistic threat and rifles being limited in strength. They could not have known or expected that someday we'd see fully automatic rifles. They could never have known the politics of today, where - I promise you - were the USA to become a police state, everyone and their mother would use it as an excuse to "liberate" the USA to get their hands on it's natural resources. They could not have been able to practically imagine where a line should be drawn. What they were getting across - the why of their stance - is that people deserve a form of self-defense; how much, they never specified. And if the founding fathers adhered to something, does this mean we have to blindly follow it no matter what? They were brilliant men deserving of respect, no doubt, but this does not mean they're without flaw. Einstein and Hawking have both been wrong, the founding fathers are no exception. If the founding fathers suggested we eat dirt to stay healthy, does that mean we all need to? Have reverence for the specific ideas named (such as freedom of speech and religion), not for the men spouting the ideas.

 

 

And wtf the culture comes first. The laws are designed to appeal to that culture. The issue at hand is that the culture the USA has now is woefully inobjective and equates "no more fully automatic assault rifles" with "THEY WANT US TO BE HELPLESS SO THEY CAN OPPRESS US." Again, I ask for a case where someone owning an assault rifle specifically was what prevented a crime/deaths of innocents. A pistol is good enough.

 

 

I do not see any point with attacking culture with reason since most cultural expressions are the result of irrational human beings. America without guns is no longer the american culture and that's why it is so difficult to change it.

[Elerond]

 

Maybe only americans are culturally predisposed to freedom and thus the reason why there's relatively so little gun violence there (if you take out minorities like blacks out of the equation). The germans sure do not have the inclination to it. Imagine arming that country with 100 million guns or rifles, yikes!

There's like 20 murders(of blacks) per 100000 blacks, so it's not exactly an epidemic there either.

 

Most anti-weapons people are making a big deal over nothing.

 

 

In my opinion that is quite high, as it means that in 10 years 2 per 1000 is died as victim of murder and in 20 years 4 per 1000, in 40 years 8 per 1000 and in 80 years 16 per 1000. Meaning that 1.6% of black people are murdered before they reach age of 80. Which in my opinion is quite lot and is something that something that society should probably at least try to deal.

[Amentep]

Those days are long gone, we are not pioneers in strange, unknown territories inhabited by wild animals.

I live in the suburbs and its not unusual to see raccoons, opossums, deer and wild dogs and cats (and rabid dogs and cats at that). A bit more uncommon (but not unheard of) to see coyotes and bears. And not too long ago, there were some alligators just on the other side of town.

[BruceVC]

 

Those days are long gone, we are not pioneers in strange, unknown territories inhabited by wild animals.

I live in the suburbs and its not unusual to see raccoons, opossums, deer and wild dogs and cats (and rabid dogs and cats at that). A bit more uncommon (but not unheard of) to see coyotes and bears. And not too long ago, there were some alligators just on the other side of town.

 

 

Holy Smoke dude, thats awesome.." bears " 

 

Where do you live again Amentep ?

[Longknife]

4.5 deaths per 100000 isn't that much.

 

If you're an American, you're more likely to die from obesity than being shot.

 

 

My citation says 10 per 100,000 deaths. Personally, I do not look it as numbers so much as I do lives. Do you realize that 10 deaths per 100,000, if we were to apply that to Obsidian forums as an example, means ten of us would be gone right now. Every life should be valued. I know that sounds corny, but think about yourself, all your uniqueness and all your stories and opinions you'd like to tell, and every single other human on earth is exactly as unique. The phrase "you are special, just like everyone" is infact not a paradox.

 

Two words: car crashes. Cars are dangerous toys. You obviously cannot seem to stop killing yourselves (and others) with these deadly contraptions, so the state has a moral mandate to protect you from yourselves by taking your cars away. This will also solve the obesity epidemic, so it's a win-win situation.

 

#watertightlogic

 

 

The difference being that a car is designed as a means of transport. Does the majority of the community consider it a fair risk to accept driving as a thing believing themselves capable of doing so? Yes.

 

Guns on the other hand? The argument being made is that they protect us from violent crimes, with much of the population actually being against such liberal usage. However, evidence would suggest that within the US and many american countries, they do the exact opposite and see use in violent crimes just as much as they see use stopping it, negating their purpose in many situations. Removing them and/or heavily restricting them (aka pistols are for civil defense and need proper registration and backround checks, with the right to bear arms being something you CAN lose as a convicted felon. Rifles and shotguns should be for practical purposes such as hunting only and thus provide an extra step of registration to acquire) seems like a good solution. Again I ask, when has an assault rifle ever been vital to stop a violent crime? I have asked this question thrice, it goes unanswered. A pistol can provide the solution in such cases, a rifle is overkill.

 

 

 

Well, the Czech and the Swiss don't exactly have founding fathers that emphasized on having guns against tyrannical government. Neither do they have long history of pioneers going into the next frontiers with nothing but guns to protect them. Oh, and what comes first: the culture or the laws and regulations that govern it?

 

I have no answers. Well, except Hurlshot is doing the right thing with his kids.

 

Which is horrendously inobjective to cling to. Those days are long gone, we are not pioneers in strange, unknown territories inhabited by wild animals. We live in remote suburbs, bored out of our minds safe as safe can be. The same logic that guides that way of thinking is the same logic that leads me to encounter people who will tell me I'm an inferior human being because I was born disabled, blissfully unaware that if society were given a choice between saving the life of Stephen Hawking or saving that guy's life, he would be dropped in a second flat, because disabilities are no longer the hinderance they may have once provided.

 

  Likewise, to cite the founding fathers is to fail to see that what they wanted was specific for that context, with England as a realistic threat and rifles being limited in strength. They could not have known or expected that someday we'd see fully automatic rifles. They could never have known the politics of today, where - I promise you - were the USA to become a police state, everyone and their mother would use it as an excuse to "liberate" the USA to get their hands on it's natural resources. They could not have been able to practically imagine where a line should be drawn. What they were getting across - the why of their stance - is that people deserve a form of self-defense; how much, they never specified. And if the founding fathers adhered to something, does this mean we have to blindly follow it no matter what? They were brilliant men deserving of respect, no doubt, but this does not mean they're without flaw. Einstein and Hawking have both been wrong, the founding fathers are no exception. If the founding fathers suggested we eat dirt to stay healthy, does that mean we all need to? Have reverence for the specific ideas named (such as freedom of speech and religion), not for the men spouting the ideas.

 

 

And wtf the culture comes first. The laws are designed to appeal to that culture. The issue at hand is that the culture the USA has now is woefully inobjective and equates "no more fully automatic assault rifles" with "THEY WANT US TO BE HELPLESS SO THEY CAN OPPRESS US." Again, I ask for a case where someone owning an assault rifle specifically was what prevented a crime/deaths of innocents. A pistol is good enough.

 

 

I do not see any point with attacking culture with reason since most cultural expressions are the result of irrational human beings. America without guns is no longer the american culture and that's why it is so difficult to change it.

 

 

 

So you're suggesting a culture is an inflexible thing that never changes, or that somehow America as we know it would not be America if it lost one simple aspect of it's identity? I certainly don't believe that, nor do I see a cause to fear such a change. Cultures changing over time is natural. If it were not, then we'd still have to put up with the Prussian culture many Germans were exposed to where they were beaten to a pulp for not doing things in the exact fashion their parents expected of them, turning them into intolerable asses with superiority complexes.

 

 

 

Those days are long gone, we are not pioneers in strange, unknown territories inhabited by wild animals.

I live in the suburbs and its not unusual to see raccoons, opossums, deer and wild dogs and cats (and rabid dogs and cats at that). A bit more uncommon (but not unheard of) to see coyotes and bears. And not too long ago, there were some alligators just on the other side of town.

 

 

 

Well then obviously you need a fully automatic assault rifle to protect yourself, lest the raccoons run you out of house and home. Disregard everything I've said thusfar.

 

Raccoons, opposums and deer are NOT going to be hostile towards you unless you yourself put yourself dangerously close to them. Where I once lived we had raccoons and oppossums too, and they only snuck towards people's houses at night to eat cat food, running off if they were seen. Dogs and cats, you have animal control for that. Coyotes are again very timid and keep their distance from humans (aka if they even come close to you, their instinct is to avoid a confrontation, not to hunt you) and bears? Unless you've got giant brown bears or mother bears, even black bears will keep their distance. Alligators I honestly forget what their habits are, but again I don't see why you need a freaking assault rifle for them.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Longknife

[Meshugger]

 

4.5 deaths per 100000 isn't that much.

 

If you're an American, you're more likely to die from obesity than being shot.

 

 

My citation says 10 per 100,000 deaths. Personally, I do not look it as numbers so much as I do lives. Do you realize that 10 deaths per 100,000, if we were to apply that to Obsidian forums as an example, means ten of us would be gone right now. Every life should be valued. I know that sounds corny, but think about yourself, all your uniqueness and all your stories and opinions you'd like to tell, and every single other human on earth is exactly as unique. The phrase "you are special, just like everyone" is infact not a paradox.

 

Two words: car crashes. Cars are dangerous toys. You obviously cannot seem to stop killing yourselves (and others) with these deadly contraptions, so the state has a moral mandate to protect you from yourselves by taking your cars away. This will also solve the obesity epidemic, so it's a win-win situation.

 

#watertightlogic

 

 

The difference being that a car is designed as a means of transport. Does the majority of the community consider it a fair risk to accept driving as a thing believing themselves capable of doing so? Yes.

 

Guns on the other hand? The argument being made is that they protect us from violent crimes, with much of the population actually being against such liberal usage. However, evidence would suggest that within the US and many american countries, they do the exact opposite and see use in violent crimes just as much as they see use stopping it, negating their purpose in many situations. Removing them and/or heavily restricting them (aka pistols are for civil defense and need proper registration and backround checks, with the right to bear arms being something you CAN lose as a convicted felon. Rifles and shotguns should be for practical purposes such as hunting only and thus provide an extra step of registration to acquire) seems like a good solution. Again I ask, when has an assault rifle ever been vital to stop a violent crime? I have asked this question thrice, it goes unanswered. A pistol can provide the solution in such cases, a rifle is overkill.

 

 

 

Well, the Czech and the Swiss don't exactly have founding fathers that emphasized on having guns against tyrannical government. Neither do they have long history of pioneers going into the next frontiers with nothing but guns to protect them. Oh, and what comes first: the culture or the laws and regulations that govern it?

 

I have no answers. Well, except Hurlshot is doing the right thing with his kids.

 

Which is horrendously inobjective to cling to. Those days are long gone, we are not pioneers in strange, unknown territories inhabited by wild animals. We live in remote suburbs, bored out of our minds safe as safe can be. The same logic that guides that way of thinking is the same logic that leads me to encounter people who will tell me I'm an inferior human being because I was born disabled, blissfully unaware that if society were given a choice between saving the life of Stephen Hawking or saving that guy's life, he would be dropped in a second flat, because disabilities are no longer the hinderance they may have once provided.

 

  Likewise, to cite the founding fathers is to fail to see that what they wanted was specific for that context, with England as a realistic threat and rifles being limited in strength. They could not have known or expected that someday we'd see fully automatic rifles. They could never have known the politics of today, where - I promise you - were the USA to become a police state, everyone and their mother would use it as an excuse to "liberate" the USA to get their hands on it's natural resources. They could not have been able to practically imagine where a line should be drawn. What they were getting across - the why of their stance - is that people deserve a form of self-defense; how much, they never specified. And if the founding fathers adhered to something, does this mean we have to blindly follow it no matter what? They were brilliant men deserving of respect, no doubt, but this does not mean they're without flaw. Einstein and Hawking have both been wrong, the founding fathers are no exception. If the founding fathers suggested we eat dirt to stay healthy, does that mean we all need to? Have reverence for the specific ideas named (such as freedom of speech and religion), not for the men spouting the ideas.

 

 

And wtf the culture comes first. The laws are designed to appeal to that culture. The issue at hand is that the culture the USA has now is woefully inobjective and equates "no more fully automatic assault rifles" with "THEY WANT US TO BE HELPLESS SO THEY CAN OPPRESS US." Again, I ask for a case where someone owning an assault rifle specifically was what prevented a crime/deaths of innocents. A pistol is good enough.

 

 

I do not see any point with attacking culture with reason since most cultural expressions are the result of irrational human beings. America without guns is no longer the american culture and that's why it is so difficult to change it.

 

 

So you're suggesting a culture is an inflexible thing that never changes, or that somehow America as we know it would not be America if it lost one simple aspect of it's identity? I certainly don't believe that, nor do I see a cause to fear such a change. Cultures changing over time is natural. If it were not, then we'd still have to put up with the Prussian culture many Germans were exposed to where they were beaten to a pulp for not doing things in the exact fashion their parents expected of them, turning them into intolerable asses with superiority complexes.

 

 

I would prefer if the culture changes in the US without the need of a president that professes his love for blood & iron. That's why is said that Hurlshot is doing the right thing, he is doing his part in adding more decent people into US society by reading to his kids. That's more than what a law in congress will ever do IMO.

[Amentep]

Well then obviously you need a fully automatic assault rifle to protect yourself, lest the raccoons run you out of house and home. Disregard everything I've said thusfar.

I never said I needed a gun period, much less an assault rifle to protect myself. All I was addressing was the assertion that people in the suburbs never encounter any wildlife. Where I live, in particular, can go from urban to suburban to rural to "Dueling Banjos" in a short driving distance.

 

And racoons and coyotes are most likely seen here when they're rabid, in which case their timidity (and even nocturnal nature) is out the window. There's been, unfortunately, an outbreak of rabid animals about 10 minutes from my house.

 

Bears are most likely seen when the males are moving out to find their own territory. They'll sometimes plow through suburbia to get somewhere not already occupied. **** knows why the alligators were there.  Most likely pets bought in Florida let loose when they got too big.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Amentep

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

4.5 deaths per 100000 isn't that much.

If you're an American, you're more likely to die from obesity than being shot.

 

 

 

My citation says 10 per 100,000 deaths. Personally, I do not look it as numbers so much as I do lives. Do you realize that 10 deaths per 100,000, if we were to apply that to Obsidian forums as an example, means ten of us would be gone right now. Every life should be valued. I know that sounds corny, but think about yourself, all your uniqueness and all your stories and opinions you'd like to tell, and every single other human on earth is exactly as unique. The phrase "you are special, just like everyone" is infact not a paradox.

 

10 per 100000 deaths in the US are due to guns?

 

Last study I looked at(http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/809516) shows obesity being responsible for 18.2% of deaths. That's 18200 per 100000. Being obese kills 1820x the rate of a machine designed to kill. I'd say violence is certainly isn't much, and obesity is easier to address both culturally and legally than guns, which are protected by an amendment and one of the most effective political lobbies in the world.

 

As someone who has personally suffered with weight issues, including obesity, I can say that it is much worse than the statistically insignificant damage gun violence causes, in that it renders the lives of those who suffer with it plagued with health problems and a sense of worthlessness. Addressing the issues that cause obesity, such as the crap food available to low-income households or the lack of education in nutrition and fitness is also easier to do than touch gun ownership.

[BruceVC]

 

 

4.5 deaths per 100000 isn't that much.

If you're an American, you're more likely to die from obesity than being shot.

 

 

My citation says 10 per 100,000 deaths. Personally, I do not look it as numbers so much as I do lives. Do you realize that 10 deaths per 100,000, if we were to apply that to Obsidian forums as an example, means ten of us would be gone right now. Every life should be valued. I know that sounds corny, but think about yourself, all your uniqueness and all your stories and opinions you'd like to tell, and every single other human on earth is exactly as unique. The phrase "you are special, just like everyone" is infact not a paradox.

 

10 per 100000 deaths in the US are due to guns?

 

Last study I looked at(http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/809516) shows obesity being responsible for 18.2% of deaths. That's 18200 per 100000. Being obese kills 1820x the rate of a machine designed to kill. I'd say violence is certainly isn't much, and obesity is easier to address both culturally and legally than guns, which are protected by an amendment and one of the most effective political lobbies in the world.

 

As someone who has personally suffered with weight issues, including obesity, I can say that it is much worse than the statistically insignificant damage gun violence causes, in that it renders the lives of those who suffer with it plagued with health problems and a sense of worthlessness. Addressing the issues that cause obesity, such as the crap food available to low-income households or the lack of education in nutrition and fitness is also easier to do than touch gun ownership.

 

 

I always  notice that when I visit the USA..you have the most beautiful people in the world but also seemingly the most obese