Show newer

@collin Actually we call them hoagies in philly and jersey, grinders and subs very rarely (usually only when the store is imported).

@thor Depends, when you have extra money do you also spread it around? If so I find people are pretty quick to help you when your down if they have it, wouldnt even need to ask.

@taoeffect I worked at FEMA in the aftermath of 911 by the way, I helped with the investigation.

But more to your point, yes, you are probably sowing seeds of doubt, at least in some people. I often find if people change their mind it is often days or even weeks or months after a conversation. For me every time ive ever changed my mind on anything it was with atleast some delay, even if it was just minutes.. .particularly if it was something i had already established in my mind.

@freemo @rrb @pj An interesting discussion. As someone who works in policing in canada I have been exposed to a lot of information about gun use in crime and the pros/cons of gun ownership and use in general. One of the aspects I think that you overlook when arguing that people would be safer if everyone carried around guns is that the vast majority of altercations, whether physical or otherwise, come about when otherwise reasonable individuals become emotionally disturbed or incensed (drugs and alcohol often contribute to this), then they make decisions they otherwise would not. A huge percentage of assaults/suicides by guns occur in residences where they are not safely stored, because individuals in the midst of an emotional episode can grab them and use them without a chance for a second thought. Suicide is also a huge one, you are *far* more likely to successfully commit suicide if there is a gun in your home and seeing as how the rate of suicidality in most developed countries keeps on increasing, probably the best reason to not own a gun is to protect you from yourself! And I think the argument for America being a naturally more violent country than other developed nations is not adequately supported by evidence, people in canada get into altercations all the time, but so few of them involve firearms that they are less likely to turn deadly, in fact, the communities within Canada that have the most fatal altercations are the very ones with the highest prevalence of gun ownership! Not having easy access to guns is certainly helping to prevent a ton of needless gun deaths. While it is true that a dedicated individual can acquire the necessary firepower to commit an atrocity, like what happened a few years ago in Nova Scotia, that event took years of planning and preparation; what gun control helps to prevent are the deaths that occur from more temporary insanities.

@Clementulus @rrb @pj

Well said and an excellent contribution to the conversation, so thank you for that.

So a lot to unload here.. I'll start with the easier part to address, the suicide.

I have a fairly unpopular opinion that suicide is a fundamental right that extends from bodily autonomy. Everyone has a right to commit suicide and we should not be in the business of blocking access to something based on it being an easy means for suicide. That said I do feel we should do our best as a society to provide a healthy environment, easy access to mental health, and generally do our best to make sure society does everything in its power to give people the means to not want to commit suicide. but in the end if thats what they want, they should have the right.

That said, as you say, a person may if they have a gun commit suicide where they wouldnt otherwise want to, it was just a rash spur of the moment thing.. well I think that is also for them to consider when they buy a gun... educate that and tell them "Hey if you buy a gun remember in a moment of insanity you might kill yourself, so now, while you are thinking rationally please consider locking it up, or maybe not buying one at all so that doesnt happen"... then if they still decide they want that gun and are ok with that risk, so be it, that is their choice.

So based on my views I can more or less dismiss the suicide argument.

A very similar argument is made when we talk about violent acts against another. You are right many of those decisions are because the gun is right there, and its in the heat of the moment. Well thats still the responsibility of the sober cool headed person to make and protect themselves from themselves You know what your like and the risks you may pose in the heat of the moment and you should use that to judge if you trust yourself with a gun or not. As for the government, it would protect against this through looking at past acts of violence. If someone has the tendency to pull out a gun and shoot someone in the heat of the moment, without a gun they are likly going to be punching or maybe stabbing people for similar reasons. So a past record of violence would ultimately serve as a protection and people with a history of violence should have a criminal record that prevents them from owning a gun in the first place.

In fact if we really wanted to use that logic to make guns illegal if we wanted to be fair we would have to make a lot of things illegal, including alcohol itself. We expect people to know and regulate themselves, if you are the type of person who looses control on alcohol and will drive drunk, then sober you should be refusing to drink alcohol... if you dont, thats on you. But we dont make alcohol illegal just because some people will act irrational if they have it.

I think we all know exactly the sort of people who are likely to succumb to temporary insanity, and the people who are like that know too. Clear headed them is responsible to plan ahead for momentary insanity them. Just as sober me is expected to make the right judgement calls to protect myself and others against drunk me, if there are any such concerns.

@rrb @pj agreed, keyword being always.

Guns as a check on government is and should be a last resort after all peaceful options are exhausted... peace can and will work most of the time if the public supports it... but that doesnt change the fact that guns act as a good security when all else fails.

There is a reason the most cruel and injust governments always make disarming the people a priority.

@rrb @pj

And can you think of examples of unarmed people peacefully protesting being slaughtered? I bet you can, there are tons.

@rrb @pj

Soubds like a good argument to allow civilians to own heavy artillary thrn. You certainly are convincing me ;)

@rrb @pj

Again no one is claiming you cant peacefully remove a dictator. The argumrnt is you need a fallback for thr tines when peace doesnt work. We also have coubtkess examples of failed attempts at peacefully overthrowing a dictator.

@rrb @pj

The is a very naive statement. For starters stealth engagment still uses guns.. second the response to "in a fight the otherside will overpower you" is not to go "ok in that case we should reduce the fighting power of the ubderdog even more so".

@rrb @pj

Absolutely.. no one is saying guns shoukd be the first and only form of fixing things.

Rebellion and use of guns is **not** a replacement to peaceful protest. It is the uttermost final response when peacefulnprotest fails and/or is met with violence.

@enirenberg the us has poor mental health, as well as poorndietary and exercise habits. Nothing about this surprises me.

How many police officers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Two, one to screw it in, the other to shoot your dog.

@LouisIngenthron @realcaseyrollins

Also im not sure kids who are commiting crimes care much about wjat their parents think...

@LouisIngenthron @realcaseyrollins

That was how inunderstood Casey's original proposal, yes. Basically to hold them accountabke for how thry raised their child basically.

@pj @rrb

Dominic : What do you think will happen?

Finch : What usually happens when people without guns stand up to people *with* guns.

-- V is for vendetta

An unarmed populace revolting agaibst their government is a sure recipie for mass slaughter.

@LouisIngenthron @realcaseyrollins

Yea if the parents were clesrly negligent they should be liabke regardless if its your kid. If inleave my gun in my backyard and a strangers kid picks it uo and shoots himself or someone else i shoukd be liable then too... the fact that it is **my** kid is kind of incidental.

@trinsec @gpowerf @realcaseyrollins

Financial.liability might make more sense, i woukd t support even that but its at least more reasonable.

@gpowerf @realcaseyrollins

Thats ehy i said especially if its applied more generally... if my kid stealing a car means i get arrested for theft, that could be an issue

Show older
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.