3 ms·

Have you perhaps considered that the treatment of terrorism is "purely sensationalistic" as well? The argument against terrorism shouldn't be "cheapened", but i

Have you perhaps considered that the treatment of terrorism is "purely sensationalistic" as well? The argument against terrorism shouldn't be "cheapened", but it should have far less value than it currently does. There are far more pressing issues, some of which will actually decrease the threat of terrorism. (for example: global access to education and healthcare, as well as moderate, tolerant leadership will decrease the ability for extremism to forment in the first place). I know this view is unpopular, but it is logical.

matwood 11y ago
Terrorism is almost by definition sensationalist. The argument I referred to as cheapened was the argument being made in the article against guns. Both sides of the gun argument are very passionate. In order for either to make headway with the other they have to avoid starting with hyperbole. Instead, all you get is both sides shouting at each other.
- Intermernet 11y ago
  As an Australian I find the gun debate in the US confusing. I think there should be more attention on the middle ground's point of view, as the arguments on both extreme sides are not realistic (In current US culture). On the pro-gun side there is a resistance to the idea that gun-control will limit the number of gun-related deaths ("the criminals will just get guns on the black market") and on the anti-gun side there seems to be willful ignorance of the fact that guns seem to be already prevalent in the US culture, and many US homes. My personal view is that guns should be controlled to a greater degree than motor vehicles, and ammunition should be even more closely monitored. In Australia we still have gun related injuries and deaths, but they're almost always illegal guns involved. We tend to not have toddler related gun crimes. Gun control doesn't mean you can't have a gun. It means that the gun you have is subject to restrictions. Same as car control doesn't mean you can't have a car, but you do everything you can to stop your three year old from driving it down the motorway. EDIT: I feel like I should describe the uses of guns I feel are acceptable (given a modern agrarian viewpoint) 1: Killing any (non endangered) animal causing harm to your livelihood. 2: Killing any (non endangered) animal you are going to eat. 3: Self defense.
  - matwood 11y ago
    A reasonable thought on gun control and gun violence is not allowed the US! Either you're for the mass killings of Americans or you're for the door to door confiscation of all guns. /s

matwood 11y ago

Terrorism is almost by definition sensationalist. The argument I referred to as cheapened was the argument being made in the article against guns. Both sides of the gun argument are very passionate. In order for either to make headway with the other they have to avoid starting with hyperbole. Instead, all you get is both sides shouting at each other.

Intermernet 11y ago
As an Australian I find the gun debate in the US confusing. I think there should be more attention on the middle ground's point of view, as the arguments on both extreme sides are not realistic (In current US culture). On the pro-gun side there is a resistance to the idea that gun-control will limit the number of gun-related deaths ("the criminals will just get guns on the black market") and on the anti-gun side there seems to be willful ignorance of the fact that guns seem to be already prevalent in the US culture, and many US homes. My personal view is that guns should be controlled to a greater degree than motor vehicles, and ammunition should be even more closely monitored. In Australia we still have gun related injuries and deaths, but they're almost always illegal guns involved. We tend to not have toddler related gun crimes. Gun control doesn't mean you can't have a gun. It means that the gun you have is subject to restrictions. Same as car control doesn't mean you can't have a car, but you do everything you can to stop your three year old from driving it down the motorway. EDIT: I feel like I should describe the uses of guns I feel are acceptable (given a modern agrarian viewpoint) 1: Killing any (non endangered) animal causing harm to your livelihood. 2: Killing any (non endangered) animal you are going to eat. 3: Self defense.
- matwood 11y ago
  A reasonable thought on gun control and gun violence is not allowed the US! Either you're for the mass killings of Americans or you're for the door to door confiscation of all guns. /s