6 ms·

Smoking kills 50-100 times more Americans every year than 9/11 did. There are a few obvious reasons why the response was much less: (1) Natural disasters are m

Smoking kills 50-100 times more Americans every year than 9/11 did. There are a few obvious reasons why the response was much less: (1) Natural disasters are more common, more expected, and less psychologically dramatic than terrorist attacks. (2) Americans intuitively view Puerto Ricans as foreigners regardless of whether they legally have US citizenship. (Due to different culture, language and religion)

sanbor 8y ago
Mass shootings are also psychologically dramatic but policies are still not changed in USA.
- throwaway8879 8y ago
  Perhaps it is useful to the policy-making folks to not change these policies? There is very few morality-based decision-making in the upper ranks of power.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Yes they are. Maryland for example has gone through several rounds of taking away peoples’ gun rights in the last decade.
  - cuboidGoat 8y ago
    In Maryland, did they actually take away any guns particularly?
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      No, GP is just echoing rhetoric they heard.
      - harryh 8y ago
        On April 4, 2013, the Maryland General Assembly approved legislation imposing significant new restrictions on gun ownership. The bills ban the sale of certain semi-automatic firearms that they define as assault weapons, limit magazine capacity to ten rounds, require that handgun purchasers be fingerprinted and pass a training class in order to obtain a handgun license, and bar persons who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health institution from possessing firearms. Martin O'Malley Governor at the time, signed the legislation into law on May 16, 2013.[14] Regarding ten round magazine limits for rifles purchased in Maryland, 'standard' 30 round magazines may be purchased outside Maryland and brought into the state for personal use. Those standard magazines may not be transferred, given, sold or manufactured inside Maryland.[15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Maryland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Maryland
        craftyguy 8y ago
        The GP comment is still wrong. They didn't take away firearms from anyone. Limiting sale != taking away what is already owned.
        rayiner 8y ago
        I didn’t say they took away guns, I said they took away gun rights. Restricting the kinds of guns you can buy, or ability to sell ir transfer existing proprty, is taking away part of your rights.
        craftyguy 8y ago
        Meh. It's more of a clarification of rights. When the second amendment was written, firearms were quite rudimentary by today's standards. I'm curious how the conversation will turn when we have 'laser guns', hand-held railguns and other weapons in the future that we cannot even comprehend today. Will folks complain about the government taking away their rights to owning an automatic railgun? Probably. Did the writers of the second amendment mean for it to apply to massively overpowered weapons? Probably not. If you believe it did, then why aren't you complaining about the government not letting you own ICBMs?

sanbor 8y ago

Mass shootings are also psychologically dramatic but policies are still not changed in USA.

throwaway8879 8y ago
Perhaps it is useful to the policy-making folks to not change these policies? There is very few morality-based decision-making in the upper ranks of power.
rayiner 8y ago
Yes they are. Maryland for example has gone through several rounds of taking away peoples’ gun rights in the last decade.
- cuboidGoat 8y ago
  In Maryland, did they actually take away any guns particularly?
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    No, GP is just echoing rhetoric they heard.
    - harryh 8y ago
      On April 4, 2013, the Maryland General Assembly approved legislation imposing significant new restrictions on gun ownership. The bills ban the sale of certain semi-automatic firearms that they define as assault weapons, limit magazine capacity to ten rounds, require that handgun purchasers be fingerprinted and pass a training class in order to obtain a handgun license, and bar persons who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health institution from possessing firearms. Martin O'Malley Governor at the time, signed the legislation into law on May 16, 2013.[14] Regarding ten round magazine limits for rifles purchased in Maryland, 'standard' 30 round magazines may be purchased outside Maryland and brought into the state for personal use. Those standard magazines may not be transferred, given, sold or manufactured inside Maryland.[15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Maryland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Maryland
      - craftyguy 8y ago
        The GP comment is still wrong. They didn't take away firearms from anyone. Limiting sale != taking away what is already owned.
        rayiner 8y ago
        I didn’t say they took away guns, I said they took away gun rights. Restricting the kinds of guns you can buy, or ability to sell ir transfer existing proprty, is taking away part of your rights.
        craftyguy 8y ago
        Meh. It's more of a clarification of rights. When the second amendment was written, firearms were quite rudimentary by today's standards. I'm curious how the conversation will turn when we have 'laser guns', hand-held railguns and other weapons in the future that we cannot even comprehend today. Will folks complain about the government taking away their rights to owning an automatic railgun? Probably. Did the writers of the second amendment mean for it to apply to massively overpowered weapons? Probably not. If you believe it did, then why aren't you complaining about the government not letting you own ICBMs?