UniversalAC said:
I'm American, and since I'm from around here I'm also familiar with "Protect and Serve". It's an oath. It means something. Fortunately LEO's don't take direction from internet denizens with "ideas".
Tell that to the dude who got his $250 tent stolen and the cops never showed up right as I was typing that original post.
It might work for them too, if we weren't actively and passively flooding them with illegal guns. It's like how we ***** about them somehow making us buy their drugs.
Well, sans the F&F scandal, we're not flooding them with anything. They're mad about weapons being smuggled in through all sides(not particularly US origin, regardless of what the Mexican president believes in how they got fully automatic weapons apparently from the US on a regular basis), they should tighten up their borders. As for the drugs, that's a fair bit of a self made issue within the US. Otherwise, it's the issue of being connected by land that allow easy smuggling for pretty much anything, and not necessarily being products of the country they're being smuggled through.
Estarc said:
I'd impressed you're able to be so number driven. I suppose if I believed that giving everyone concealed guns would result in less shooting deaths in the US I might consider supporting it. But even if it resulted in less mass shooting deaths I'd be willing to bet the net deaths from shootings would rise. I've certainly been in situations where if the other person had had a gun on them I'd be dead.
At a certain point, you have to start being at least mildly number driven.
In terms of net deaths, it depends. A lot of statistics include officer involved shootings and cases of self defense as a shooting, so for that definition you'd need to carefully define what a "shooting" actually is, unless your intention is an overall decrease of firearm related deaths period, which can indeed be achieved by essentially banning legal firearm usage, but then you'd be just cutting down on self defense cases or up to officer involved shootings depending on your reach, while illegal uses of illegal firearms would remain roughly the same because, well, you probably know the line by now. It's not exactly net deaths from shootings, but what KIND of shootings because that definition can be very broad, as can be the one for a "school shooting", especially when the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence's stats for them include cases of suicide on school grounds using a firearm, totally different from someone plugging their classmates.
Also, sorry to hear you've been in such a situation.
UniversalAC said:
I wonder how the legality of a society in which the ability to wield a firearm is your only security, matches with the legality of things like the ADA. It seems like we'd be throwing the children and the disabled out for chum.
Well, if going by US society in general, firearms are a major means for security but are not the only means. When you're throwing in the ability for a child or person who is differently abled(using that term for a reason you'll see in a moment), then you're basically thinking they are totally defenseless when they actually aren't. There are many cases of children using the guns of their parents or one that was a gift from them essentially and defending themselves, with a recent case being I believe a 12ish year old boy getting his mother's handgun and firing on a dickass neighbor who was breaking in through their front door. Sadly, much of the media portrayed it as a child murdering someone on their front porch and I believe the mother of the neighbor stated the guy never went on the porch, yet his body was in the broken up doorway of the front door to the house.
When bringing in those who are disabled, you're more scaling it on what they are able/not able to do which is where differently abled actually does have a very good meaning. There are not many cases of highly disabled persons using firearms for defense because, well, if it is an advanced state of disability, they likely cannot do much on their own at all. Someone who cannot walk however, can easily load and use a firearm. From memory, there are even companies who make wheelchairs that specifically cater to this, though I have seen none in person and haven't seen much online so, grain of salt.
The most vulnerable members of our society are targeted most by the most vile members of it, and I in no way support the disarming of those who particularly need the means to even the odds against their attackers. From memory, California is explicitly attempting to do this with whoever gets money for disabilities.
FFHAuthor said:
Sometimes it's worth it, mostly though it isn't. I don't speak up on the Escapist much on anything that matters anymore. Frankly I hit my limit for the kind of hassle that shows up if you differ from the internet's echo chamber at all a very long time ago. But sometimes it comes down to be willing to say something, and this thread...it just irks me for what it represents. I'm not even throwing down about Gun Control/Gun Rights here. It's just about having an open mind.
If the discussion only ever comes down to each side looking upon one another with contempt, if it only ever becomes a contest to see who can belittle the other, if it's only ever a contest to see who can remain the most unaware and ignorant of the other side's reasons and points, then what is it all about? What do we gain? What can we learn? What will ever be resolved?
Right now it's about who can scream louder, who can overwhelm the other side and enforce their view of what's right upon the other. Who can slip in their Google fact that'll be impressive and imposing. It's not going to work, it's only going to make everyone who might be able to agree upon something entrench themselves. It makes the people who willing to learn and listen shut down.
Talking, maybe having enough intellectual honesty to regard the other side as being reasonable and rational people whose opinions and views come from something tangible might not be something easy, but I don't think anything is going to get resolved with an issue as important as Gun Crime/Gun Rights. Both sides need to step up, and both sides need to learn about the other's rationale for why they believe. Then maybe we can do a little bit more than nitpick and jab at each other online for what little 'victories' we can find that are meaningless in the grand scope of anything.
So, I don't think we'll ever agree Dagra, on Guns, or probably on a lot of other topics. But maybe it can come down to each of us saying that the other isn't a capering loon who's based everything they believe on utter lunacy.
Basically, this. You can attribute a lot of shitflinging seen in this very topic primarily on one side or another, usually both at some point or the same time, calling the other some variant of idiot or having a sense of smug superiority. It's definitely a totally different thing from discussing a topic and comparing rationales to basically saying the other side is responsible for X and they should feel bad for it.
