3 ms·

It's so bleak that people think the solution to violent lawlessness is more guns, more violence. Now in the hands of untrained civilians. Normally you could sa

It's so bleak that people think the solution to violent lawlessness is more guns, more violence. Now in the hands of untrained civilians. Normally you could say their unadulterated freedom allows them to commit accidents, but that's hard to swallow when you've just said the poor are desperate and without sufficient support from law enforcement. That's not freedom.

colsandurz 5y ago
What’s wrong with giving people options?
torstenvl 5y ago
Um. Yes. Giving people more options to live their lives as they see fit, rather than forcing them to rely on the benevolence of a government, is indeed freedom. By definition. Please don't post in bad faith.
- oliwarner 5y ago
  People living in places where they feel they need a gun, can't afford the lessons aren't empowered by this, they're a hostage to poverty and undercontrolled crime. Any rational person of means would move away. All they can do is pick up a gun and hope it isn't stolen and used on them. Law enforcement isn't governmental benevolence, it's the foundation of society that stops people violently taking everything you have. Life without fear gives people options. Fund effective policing and social programmes (which directly and demonstrably improve L&O outcomes), education, get [all] guns off the streets.
  - Grakel 5y ago
    The supreme court has decided that the police have no obligation to interrupt a crime or protect you from violence, only to investigate afterwards. Even if they decide to, they're minutes or sometimes hours away.
    - oliwarner 5y ago
      > The supreme court has decided We shouldn't give up on progress because of how five judges read a bit of old parchment. I'm talking about societal aims, and of course, they're just my opinion. We should want to decrease crime, not just shoot at it. That's not just education, drug rehab, it's a solid police presence and community engagement. A world where the top earning 10% still interact with the bottom earning 10%. We keep moving in the wrong direction.
      - torstenvl 5y ago
        Castle Rock was 7-2 and indeed was unanimous on the question at issue as a federal matter. From Justice Stevens' dissent: "It is perfectly clear, on the one hand, that neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual entitlement to police protection." The basis for the dissent was that Justices Stevens and Ginsburg believed, out of deference to federalism, that the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the issue of whether state law provided for such a right, but instead should have deferred to the federal district court or certified the question to the state Supreme Court. Moreover, the Constitution is emphatically not "a bit of old parchment." For shame.
        oliwarner 5y ago
        You ignored what I said. Tomorrow's progress isn't dependent the Constitution. What we want for our future does not rely on the permissions of what came before it.
        torstenvl 5y ago
        What you said was "We shouldn't give up on progress because of how five judges read a bit of old parchment" It isn't five judges. It isn't a bit of old parchment. Your dishonesty is unbecoming.
_nicelaris_ 5y ago
More guns != more violence. That's absurd and has zero basis in reality. The reality is that more gun restrictions = more violence. Look at any relevant statistic and see the direct correlation between gun control and increased crime against innocent people. Even if the stats were somehow in your favor, the moral and ethical principle of the right to self defense cannot reasonably be refuted, and any attempt to do so should not be tolerated by civilized human beings.

colsandurz 5y ago

What’s wrong with giving people options?

torstenvl 5y ago

Um. Yes. Giving people more options to live their lives as they see fit, rather than forcing them to rely on the benevolence of a government, is indeed freedom. By definition. Please don't post in bad faith.

oliwarner 5y ago
People living in places where they feel they need a gun, can't afford the lessons aren't empowered by this, they're a hostage to poverty and undercontrolled crime. Any rational person of means would move away. All they can do is pick up a gun and hope it isn't stolen and used on them. Law enforcement isn't governmental benevolence, it's the foundation of society that stops people violently taking everything you have. Life without fear gives people options. Fund effective policing and social programmes (which directly and demonstrably improve L&O outcomes), education, get [all] guns off the streets.
- Grakel 5y ago
  The supreme court has decided that the police have no obligation to interrupt a crime or protect you from violence, only to investigate afterwards. Even if they decide to, they're minutes or sometimes hours away.
  - oliwarner 5y ago
    > The supreme court has decided We shouldn't give up on progress because of how five judges read a bit of old parchment. I'm talking about societal aims, and of course, they're just my opinion. We should want to decrease crime, not just shoot at it. That's not just education, drug rehab, it's a solid police presence and community engagement. A world where the top earning 10% still interact with the bottom earning 10%. We keep moving in the wrong direction.
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      Castle Rock was 7-2 and indeed was unanimous on the question at issue as a federal matter. From Justice Stevens' dissent: "It is perfectly clear, on the one hand, that neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual entitlement to police protection." The basis for the dissent was that Justices Stevens and Ginsburg believed, out of deference to federalism, that the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the issue of whether state law provided for such a right, but instead should have deferred to the federal district court or certified the question to the state Supreme Court. Moreover, the Constitution is emphatically not "a bit of old parchment." For shame.
      - oliwarner 5y ago
        You ignored what I said. Tomorrow's progress isn't dependent the Constitution. What we want for our future does not rely on the permissions of what came before it.
        torstenvl 5y ago
        What you said was "We shouldn't give up on progress because of how five judges read a bit of old parchment" It isn't five judges. It isn't a bit of old parchment. Your dishonesty is unbecoming.

_nicelaris_ 5y ago

More guns != more violence. That's absurd and has zero basis in reality. The reality is that more gun restrictions = more violence. Look at any relevant statistic and see the direct correlation between gun control and increased crime against innocent people. Even if the stats were somehow in your favor, the moral and ethical principle of the right to self defense cannot reasonably be refuted, and any attempt to do so should not be tolerated by civilized human beings.