5 ms·
To be clear you replyed to a previous poster who made two points. I defended those two points. These are two new points that I'll attempt to address. If there'
by sarvinc 14y ago
To be clear you replyed to a previous poster who made two points. I defended those two points. These are two new points that I'll attempt to address.
If there's one argument I cannot tolerate it's a "for the children" argument. Yes great lets have less children die. How do we do that? Killing sprees in China show that you can kill several children with just knives and gasoline. So after the guns we ban knives, we regulate gasoline, we restrict the press and instill a curfew because "for the children." Better yet, while we're just naming stuff that will make us feel better, why not a TSA-like agency for all public places, a Patriot Act to protect us from killing-spree and more warrant-less wiretapping because "for the children." Pedofiles on Facebook; regulate the Internet "because for the children." Can we please find a solution that does not strip freedoms from the sane and law-abiding among us?
It won't solve the problem because we are not other countries. I don't say this out of hubris. Without addressing things like the gun-culture we have here or the irrational fear of crimes we have here people will find a way to procure firearms. I'm pretty sure in 10 years 3D-printing will have advanced enough for us to make upper-receivers. What then? Do we regulate computers "for the children?"
- bonaldi 14y agoFine, /s/children/people. Argument is precisely the same. And you have less of them dying of gunshots wounds by having fewer guns/ammunition. That won't stop knife crime, sure, but let's revisit that discussion when as many people are dying of knives in the US as die of gunshot wounds. And, yes, addressing the gun culture will have to be a component of this. But violent cultures can be changed. The US is a past master at it -- look at the post-WWII reconstruction it orchestrated in Japan.
- sarvinc 14y agoI agree that if we limit firearms we limit harm from firearms. Tell me why we should stop at firearms? Fewer children would meet pedophiles online if we didn't have an Internet. Fewer people would die in car accidents if we didn't have cars. 35.9 million people died within a year of being in a car accident [0]. Lets revisit this discussion when as many people are dying of gunshot wounds in the US as die of a car accident. [0] www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf
- bonaldi 14y agoIn all these cases, you measure benefits against costs. Costs (eg negative impact, not price) of limiting firearms: low, mostly political. Costs of limiting cars: catastrophic, economy-devastating. That's why we should stop at firearms.
- sarvinc 14y ago> Costs (eg negative impact, not price) of limiting firearms: low, mostly political. Costs of limiting cars: catastrophic, economy-devastating. Not sure where you get the idea that the cost of limiting firearms is low or that the cost of limiting cars is high. Mass transportation, tele-communication etc. seem like viable solutions and because "for the children." > That's why we should stop at firearms. That's why we should stop giving our rights and freedoms away.