4 ms·

>You can, however, swing probabilities. This is no different than the anti (strong) crypto arguments. The overwhelming amount of law abiding citizens give up l

by jjn2009 11y ago

>You can, however, swing probabilities. This is no different than the anti (strong) crypto arguments. The overwhelming amount of law abiding citizens give up liberties in the name of reducing a probability which is less significant than the risk of eating cheese burgers every day and dying from heart disease, or entering a vehicle.

zamalek 11y ago
All I argued for was "common sense" gun laws. If guns were handled correctly (by law) this article or discussion wouldn't exist - gun advocacy would look good. Under the same conditions gun control advocates would have a shorter leap up to strict legislation. This is not a net step forward or back for either side. Gun advocates see it as a step toward limitations of their freedom. Control advocates see it as not a large enough step. This is depressing because people are at risk around idiots every day. Everyone is fixated on the end-goal, instead of saving lives - which is why both sides are having this argument in the first place.
- jjn2009 11y ago
  >"common sense" gun laws Considering this is america we are talking about the "common sense" is that liberty is better than government provided safety for a large portion of americans. >If guns were handled correctly (by law) this article or discussion wouldn't exist Cars kill more people by a large margin, if we really cared about safety then why is it that we see articles about gun control more so than car deaths, or heart disease? Sensationalization of an issue isn't some basis we should be using for arguments about how to write laws. >Gun advocates see it as a step toward limitations of their freedom. Every single piece of legislation which exhibits control chips away at freedom even if its imperceptible in the short term view, we just saw the FBI try and use a 200+ year old law to limit the freedom of apple to protect their customers. The thing about the US government is that once a law is written it is difficult for to go away and very easy for it to be forgotten about until conveniently needed in court. Coalescing piece by piece, legislation over time has brought us to a point where most citizens are breaking some law in some form without knowing it. Calling each step forward in gun control a small step towards limiting freedom isn't really that crazy. >Everyone is fixated on the end-goal, instead of saving lives If they were really concerned then their fixation is misplaced http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

by jjn2009 11y ago

zamalek 11y ago

All I argued for was "common sense" gun laws. If guns were handled correctly (by law) this article or discussion wouldn't exist - gun advocacy would look good. Under the same conditions gun control advocates would have a shorter leap up to strict legislation. This is not a net step forward or back for either side. Gun advocates see it as a step toward limitations of their freedom. Control advocates see it as not a large enough step. This is depressing because people are at risk around idiots every day. Everyone is fixated on the end-goal, instead of saving lives - which is why both sides are having this argument in the first place.

jjn2009 11y ago
>"common sense" gun laws Considering this is america we are talking about the "common sense" is that liberty is better than government provided safety for a large portion of americans. >If guns were handled correctly (by law) this article or discussion wouldn't exist Cars kill more people by a large margin, if we really cared about safety then why is it that we see articles about gun control more so than car deaths, or heart disease? Sensationalization of an issue isn't some basis we should be using for arguments about how to write laws. >Gun advocates see it as a step toward limitations of their freedom. Every single piece of legislation which exhibits control chips away at freedom even if its imperceptible in the short term view, we just saw the FBI try and use a 200+ year old law to limit the freedom of apple to protect their customers. The thing about the US government is that once a law is written it is difficult for to go away and very easy for it to be forgotten about until conveniently needed in court. Coalescing piece by piece, legislation over time has brought us to a point where most citizens are breaking some law in some form without knowing it. Calling each step forward in gun control a small step towards limiting freedom isn't really that crazy. >Everyone is fixated on the end-goal, instead of saving lives If they were really concerned then their fixation is misplaced http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm