Author Topic: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.  (Read 23231 times)

Just Joe

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 970
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #400 on: October 17, 2017, 08:47:37 AM »
We all have the right to defend ourselves, from a mugger or a tyrant, or a roaming gang of thugs.

I like the idea that you have a right to defend yourself from things that will do you harm or kill you.  But getting back to a question that I asked earlier on . . .  Do we have the right to defend ourselves from someone driving a vehicle that burns fossil fuels?  (Remember that thousands are killed by the emissions from these vehicles every year, and many more develop breathing problems from the pollution.)

If no, why not and how is this different from defending yourself from a mugger?

If yes, how would you recommend that someone defend themselves in this situation?

You certainly have the right to move away from population centers to the rural country where pollution from internal combustion engines is much lessened.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9311
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #401 on: October 17, 2017, 09:26:38 AM »
We all have the right to defend ourselves, from a mugger or a tyrant, or a roaming gang of thugs.

I like the idea that you have a right to defend yourself from things that will do you harm or kill you.  But getting back to a question that I asked earlier on . . .  Do we have the right to defend ourselves from someone driving a vehicle that burns fossil fuels?  (Remember that thousands are killed by the emissions from these vehicles every year, and many more develop breathing problems from the pollution.)

If no, why not and how is this different from defending yourself from a mugger?

If yes, how would you recommend that someone defend themselves in this situation?

You certainly have the right to move away from population centers to the rural country where pollution from internal combustion engines is much lessened.

Is that also your solution for getting mugged, living under a tyrant, and roaming gangs of thugs?  Move away and hope that it doesn't happen to you?  In that case, why does anyone need a gun?

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1071
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #402 on: October 17, 2017, 01:13:39 PM »
The US revolution is a product of the Enlightenment and the right to property is an essential part.

Sure, I'm on board with that. But again, property itself constituted slaves which in and of itself contradicted the "all men are created equal" part as well. Jefferson and others, again while slave owners themselves, understood that including the slave trade in any documents would likely hinder their goal. It's unknown where "pursuit of happiness" actually originated from.

However, the right to own a gun doesn't fall under any unalienable rights. It falls under the 2nd amendment, which has restrictions, as it should. As others have pointed out, it's not ok for folks to own nukes and other WMDs.

This is all with the accepted understanding that we have some sort of "god given rights" which I don't believe to be true at all.
But that has nothing to do with this topic and I am not opening that can of worms.
Even if you are an atheist, I think you can still logically accept some type of "god' given rights. Just accepting that there is something else out there other than ourselves. Otherwise something is the 'right thing to do' because a majority of politicians says so, and a subsequent majority do not rescinding the law seems pretty silly; I don't get my morality from politicians, ever.

All rights are 'god given' it is just that laws are a recognition of those rights. We all have the right to defend ourselves, from a mugger or a tyrant, or a roaming gang of thugs.

I cannot logically accept that which is illogical. We as a society act and behave within certain rules, based on what we deem to be good. But those rules and that which we deem "good" is constantly evolving. For instance it's not really good to burn "witches" at the stake. But it used to be. Tribes of the Amazon still kill each other over things we would deem mere trivial. Just a couple examples out of numerous where certain behaviors are acceptable in certain societies. A "god given right" to whom? Only Christian Americans? If God allegedly gave us these rights, then at some point we never had them. How does that make sense? And who's God? I mean there are countless Gods out there. If God gave us the right to own weapons who's only purpose is to kill then how does that fit in with the right to life? Seems like a contradiction. Perhaps the Vegas shooter was just exercising his "god given right" to own guns.

I don't need politicians nor some sort of invisible sky person to dictate right vs wrong. Society does that along with evolution. It's fine if you believe all your "rights" are God given. I'll go with the more practical society angle with the understanding that there will always be flaws in the system and the system will constantly evolve. I don't see Australia turning into a country in complete chaos thinking they infringed on some sort of "God given right." They just deemed the right to life to be vastly more important than guns.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2017, 01:15:12 PM by MasterStache »

Just Joe

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 970
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #403 on: October 17, 2017, 03:56:27 PM »
We all have the right to defend ourselves, from a mugger or a tyrant, or a roaming gang of thugs.

I like the idea that you have a right to defend yourself from things that will do you harm or kill you.  But getting back to a question that I asked earlier on . . .  Do we have the right to defend ourselves from someone driving a vehicle that burns fossil fuels?  (Remember that thousands are killed by the emissions from these vehicles every year, and many more develop breathing problems from the pollution.)

If no, why not and how is this different from defending yourself from a mugger?

If yes, how would you recommend that someone defend themselves in this situation?

You certainly have the right to move away from population centers to the rural country where pollution from internal combustion engines is much lessened.

Is that also your solution for getting mugged, living under a tyrant, and roaming gangs of thugs?  Move away and hope that it doesn't happen to you?  In that case, why does anyone need a gun?

Nope. I own guns - BUT I pair safe places with gun ownership. My town has an annual murder rate of ~0.5?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9311
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #404 on: October 17, 2017, 06:49:08 PM »
We all have the right to defend ourselves, from a mugger or a tyrant, or a roaming gang of thugs.

I like the idea that you have a right to defend yourself from things that will do you harm or kill you.  But getting back to a question that I asked earlier on . . .  Do we have the right to defend ourselves from someone driving a vehicle that burns fossil fuels?  (Remember that thousands are killed by the emissions from these vehicles every year, and many more develop breathing problems from the pollution.)

If no, why not and how is this different from defending yourself from a mugger?

If yes, how would you recommend that someone defend themselves in this situation?

You certainly have the right to move away from population centers to the rural country where pollution from internal combustion engines is much lessened.

Is that also your solution for getting mugged, living under a tyrant, and roaming gangs of thugs?  Move away and hope that it doesn't happen to you?  In that case, why does anyone need a gun?

Nope. I own guns - BUT I pair safe places with gun ownership. My town has an annual murder rate of ~0.5?

Great?

But my original point still stands.  You do not have the right to defend yourself from things that will do you harm or kill you.  Example: car exhaust.

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #405 on: October 18, 2017, 06:40:21 AM »
You certainly have the right to move away from population centers to the rural country where pollution from internal combustion engines is much lessened.
Is that also your solution for getting mugged, living under a tyrant, and roaming gangs of thugs?  Move away and hope that it doesn't happen to you?  In that case, why does anyone need a gun?
Nope. I own guns - BUT I pair safe places with gun ownership. My town has an annual murder rate of ~0.5?
Great?

But my original point still stands.  You do not have the right to defend yourself from things that will do you harm or kill you.  Example: car exhaust.
Moving to the country isn't a cure to pollution because a) air quality may improve, but not 100% b) it's not an option for everyone c) by this logic I could also argue that one could move into a bunker with heavy security to avoid the need for a gun.

Also, murder rate is only relevant per capita. If you live in a small town, .5 annual could be high. I assume it's not that small, just sayin'

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 808
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #406 on: October 18, 2017, 07:11:02 AM »
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
Sure, as long as they are reasonable and prevent a large number of alcohol related deaths (no regulation is perfect). Hell, I'm fine with regulating how often you go to McDonalds if it will help reduce a huge amount of heart disease deaths. The regulations need to make a visible percentage difference in deaths otherwise what is the point. Whether it's alcohol or obesity or guns, if regulations cause for example a 50% reduction in deaths, then I'm all for it. If a regulation only causes like a 1% reduction in deaths, then no, the freedom lost is not worth the lives saved. I don't know where the best compromise is, but somewhere there is a better compromise than our current situation.

Just curious about your response here. Again, we probably have some significant philosophical differences on things, but I appreciate your consistency. You comment on things in regards to evaluating if something is effectively reducing deaths in a very practical/numbers based perspective. I am curious where this viewpoint takes you. In general, my perspective is very much biased towards feeling that the government restricting people's freedoms to do something that impacts no one but themselves should be a last resort situation, and I don't feel that it is worth it in many cases (i.e. a person restricted in buying guns who hasn't hurt someone is having their freedoms restricted before they have done something wrong). Not trying to get into the specifics of the gun control discussion here, but I'm curious what you think, since it appears that you see things differently. You mention restricting things if they are successful at preventing deaths on a significant scale. I guess my question is, how do you draw the line on restricting freedoms in general. The cliche argument is that we could live in a 1984 environment with no privacy where crime would be significantly reduced. It's a straw man, of course, but it's not to say that it wouldn't be true. If the government completely monitored everything, general crime would almost certainly go down, but almost everyone would agree the trade-off wouldn't be worth it. Again, for me, it's a fairly easy distinction - I almost always default to more freedom even if the trade-off is more risks. What would you say would be how you look at the situation? How do you determine if the freedom is worth the risks, even if the risks are significant? Are the freedoms ever worth the risks (I'm assuming the answer to this is yes at least in some situations)?
So I'll share my viewpoint on your thoughts here Wolf.

For me, the issue here comes down to that I view the inherent purpose of guns and what I hear the vast majority of people who argue to own them with as few restrictions as possible to be heavily based on what I view as bad reasons.  Very few people argue the hunting angle when I talk with them.  The argue some variation of "I need a gun to protect myself from bad hombres and the apocalypse", so that clearly means that their primary driver for owning a gun is ton inflict harm or to threaten to inflict harm on someone else.  I do understand that this is couched in the fact that they are not going to take that step except out of self defense, or at least we assume that.  However, when you boil it down, the driver to own the gun can in no way be shaped as something we would all smile at as wonderful, joyful and fun.  It is instead wrapped in fear, anxiety and paranoia.

So therefore when guns are lined up against something else, like alcohol, car exhaust or something else, that is not engaged in or desired from a mainly negative perspective it just does not resonate with me.  It becomes a false equivalency because the disconnect on what drives most partakers in the other thing being compared to a gun overrides everything else.  Most people who like alcohol enjoy the camaraderie of meeting their friends at a bar, the taste of the drink, the way it helps them relax.  Most people who want a car, want it as others have already pointed out for transportation, to be able to see parts of the country they live in that that could not easily bike or walk to and to avoid the expense of air or rail travel and have more freedom of movement.  Far fewer people are drawn to alcohol primarily as a means to get stone drunk as a regular means to forget bad memories or to toss into a burglars eyes to allow them to get away.  Far fewer people want a car to be able to run away from a dangerous city or to allow for escape in the event of a mugging.  Again, the primary motivator of ownership or participation of most things is positive, but for most gun owners I have spoken with it is negative.  It is protection from individuals, governments, tyranny.  Even the hunters I know have those things high on their list along with the pleasure they get from hunting. 

So because I view the primary motivator of a gun to be negative I am more comfortable restricting their freedoms than I would be for something whose purpose and desire for ownership is not to harm someone or something (even if it's just a paper target) and the assumption that I want one because one day I may need to threaten to cause that harm.  To be clear, I feel the same way about any weapon, not just guns.  I need a steak knife, but I do not need to own a ninja spear.  And for me there is a difference because of the lethality of guns versus other weapons.  As several have mentioned, 500+ people would have been a lot harder to injure with a knife or a bow and arrow.  So the magnitude of the damage that can be wreaked has to factor in to how we regulate something.  To jump on to the crazy tangent earlier, it's why it is (and should be) really hard to procure a nuclear bomb versus a firecracker or a pop rock.  Again the false equivalency that a gun is just a tool and should be regulated no more than a hammer or a drill or a screwdriver is a far reach for me.  It's a tool capable (and specifically designed) to cause far more damage.  I could beat you to death with a hammer, but it's a lot easier with a gun where I do not even need to get near you.

And as former player said, I do not feel less free because I do not own a gun, nor would I feel more free because I did.  I feel the same way about whether or not I can own my bicycle or my breakfast cereal.  It does not impact my level of freedom feeling. 


Just Joe

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 970
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #408 on: October 18, 2017, 08:59:35 AM »
You certainly have the right to move away from population centers to the rural country where pollution from internal combustion engines is much lessened.
Is that also your solution for getting mugged, living under a tyrant, and roaming gangs of thugs?  Move away and hope that it doesn't happen to you?  In that case, why does anyone need a gun?
Nope. I own guns - BUT I pair safe places with gun ownership. My town has an annual murder rate of ~0.5?
Great?

But my original point still stands.  You do not have the right to defend yourself from things that will do you harm or kill you.  Example: car exhaust.
Moving to the country isn't a cure to pollution because a) air quality may improve, but not 100% b) it's not an option for everyone c) by this logic I could also argue that one could move into a bunker with heavy security to avoid the need for a gun.

Also, murder rate is only relevant per capita. If you live in a small town, .5 annual could be high. I assume it's not that small, just sayin'

All true. My goal was to maximize my family's safety while living ordinary lives (not in a bunker) and I think we've done right. No need to brandish a gun about to defend our space. No need to stare down any "tough guys" during the course of our day. The risks here at tiny.

As for exhaust - its better here than southern CA and technology will continue to deliver cleaner air I THINK (hope) if we can get the GOP out of the driver's seat and prevent them from closing the EPA. Somebody needs to be pushing businesses to invest to cleaner technologies as our population continues to grow and the population increases in density.

My family is reaping the benefits of our planning from a couple of decades ago.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2017, 09:05:18 AM by Just Joe »

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #409 on: October 18, 2017, 10:54:09 AM »
Great?

But my original point still stands.  You do not have the right to defend yourself from things that will do you harm or kill you.  Example: car exhaust.

Well, I think you do have that right.

It gets a little trickier when it is not imminent(like a home invasion). Our tresspassing laws are pretty stupid. If I find a man in my back yard or teenagers wandering around for something to steal I really cannot do anything, even physically restrain them while the police are in route; even though if I am not there my kids might be running around and my wife would not be able to protect them.

I think it is all in degrees though.

 Even environmentally, say, when people died from famines and someone did something to accidentally poison a creek and people got sick and livestock died and say some elderly people died; would the community kill that person? Doubtful, if they were sure it was just a mistake and the person was a buffoon; maybe exiled them and tell them to never return. Defense, even if a little late.

In a modern sense, it would behoove communities to build more bike paths and sidewalks and restrict parking where those modes are available. Boycott a gas station in the middle of a walkable community, etc.

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 121
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #410 on: October 18, 2017, 03:06:10 PM »
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
Sure, as long as they are reasonable and prevent a large number of alcohol related deaths (no regulation is perfect). Hell, I'm fine with regulating how often you go to McDonalds if it will help reduce a huge amount of heart disease deaths. The regulations need to make a visible percentage difference in deaths otherwise what is the point. Whether it's alcohol or obesity or guns, if regulations cause for example a 50% reduction in deaths, then I'm all for it. If a regulation only causes like a 1% reduction in deaths, then no, the freedom lost is not worth the lives saved. I don't know where the best compromise is, but somewhere there is a better compromise than our current situation.

Just curious about your response here. Again, we probably have some significant philosophical differences on things, but I appreciate your consistency. You comment on things in regards to evaluating if something is effectively reducing deaths in a very practical/numbers based perspective. I am curious where this viewpoint takes you. In general, my perspective is very much biased towards feeling that the government restricting people's freedoms to do something that impacts no one but themselves should be a last resort situation, and I don't feel that it is worth it in many cases (i.e. a person restricted in buying guns who hasn't hurt someone is having their freedoms restricted before they have done something wrong). Not trying to get into the specifics of the gun control discussion here, but I'm curious what you think, since it appears that you see things differently. You mention restricting things if they are successful at preventing deaths on a significant scale. I guess my question is, how do you draw the line on restricting freedoms in general. The cliche argument is that we could live in a 1984 environment with no privacy where crime would be significantly reduced. It's a straw man, of course, but it's not to say that it wouldn't be true. If the government completely monitored everything, general crime would almost certainly go down, but almost everyone would agree the trade-off wouldn't be worth it. Again, for me, it's a fairly easy distinction - I almost always default to more freedom even if the trade-off is more risks. What would you say would be how you look at the situation? How do you determine if the freedom is worth the risks, even if the risks are significant? Are the freedoms ever worth the risks (I'm assuming the answer to this is yes at least in some situations)?
Let me start by mentioning that I do have guns, and I exercise most of the rights that the government gives me (whether that be tax breaks or guns or Roth conversion ladders). I do not vote for tax breaks for the upper middle class, but I am not going to give the government more money in protest. Same goes for guns.

As I said, I'm not sure where the optimal compromise is between safety and freedom. For example, I think the seatbelt could be considered an infringement on your freedom, by taking time to put on and restricting your comfort as you fly down the road. However, I would say that most people agree it is a good law to have, because it saves many lives. So, we would have to see how many lives (percentage-wise) gun regulations save, and decided how much freedom is truly lost by them (is it a few seconds of work? Is it years of training? Obviously these are different). Then the courts and our flawless elected officials will have to have a reasonable, non-partisan, non-ultimatum discussion on where the best compromise lies.

So short answer, I don't know. I know I am not pleased with the current system, and would like the opportunity to observe other systems and weigh for myself if it is better or worse.

dcamnc

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #411 on: October 19, 2017, 01:40:16 AM »
Changing gun laws is career suicide for politicians. This is why they won't do much or anything. The citizens want guns, is the bottom line. If a politician or political party tries to take them away, or heavily restrict them, they can kiss whatever power they have goodbye. WE are the ones who are keeping current gun laws in place. The politicians are a reflection of us, here in the US, like it or not. The CITIZENS have to decide they've had enough, not the politicians. The politicians won't do much of anything without our support, and the majority of Americans don't want to give up their guns, or have them restricted, including some of the left. It's just the reality.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2607
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #412 on: October 19, 2017, 02:02:00 AM »
Changing gun laws is career suicide for politicians. This is why they won't do much or anything. The citizens want guns, is the bottom line. If a politician or political party tries to take them away, or heavily restrict them, they can kiss whatever power they have goodbye. WE are the ones who are keeping current gun laws in place. The politicians are a reflection of us, here in the US, like it or not. The CITIZENS have to decide they've had enough, not the politicians. The politicians won't do much of anything without our support, and the majority of Americans don't want to give up their guns, or have them restricted, including some of the left. It's just the reality.
No, it's the reality of a populace captured by the gun lobby.  How the populace think now is not the same as what they used to think and it's not the same as how they will think in the future.  Change happens.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

dcamnc

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #413 on: October 19, 2017, 04:09:01 AM »
Changing gun laws is career suicide for politicians. This is why they won't do much or anything. The citizens want guns, is the bottom line. If a politician or political party tries to take them away, or heavily restrict them, they can kiss whatever power they have goodbye. WE are the ones who are keeping current gun laws in place. The politicians are a reflection of us, here in the US, like it or not. The CITIZENS have to decide they've had enough, not the politicians. The politicians won't do much of anything without our support, and the majority of Americans don't want to give up their guns, or have them restricted, including some of the left. It's just the reality.
No, it's the reality of a populace captured by the gun lobby.  How the populace think now is not the same as what they used to think and it's not the same as how they will think in the future.  Change happens.

Over time, yes, but only if the citizens support it, which they haven't, and likely won't for a while.

radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 538
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #414 on: October 19, 2017, 06:07:41 AM »
Changing gun laws is career suicide for politicians. This is why they won't do much or anything. The citizens want guns, is the bottom line. If a politician or political party tries to take them away, or heavily restrict them, they can kiss whatever power they have goodbye. WE are the ones who are keeping current gun laws in place. The politicians are a reflection of us, here in the US, like it or not. The CITIZENS have to decide they've had enough, not the politicians. The politicians won't do much of anything without our support, and the majority of Americans don't want to give up their guns, or have them restricted, including some of the left. It's just the reality.
No, it's the reality of a populace captured by the gun lobby.  How the populace think now is not the same as what they used to think and it's not the same as how they will think in the future.  Change happens.

I see both of these comments as accurate.

radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 538
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #415 on: October 19, 2017, 07:06:26 AM »
I would like to approach the gun debate from a different angle, that being the words in the amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The way I see this sentence, the government shall not infringe on a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA". If you disagree with this premise, please share your rationale, because it is critical understanding for the remainder of my post.

I believe current gun laws are unconstitutional, because they are not regulated enough. Proper regulation is a REQUIREMENT to avoid infringing on this right. It doesn't say people MUST be allowed to have guns, and the government MAY regulate them. It clearly says they MUST regulate them well. Nowhere in this amendment does it state we only care about the guns that kill people or are used in crimes. It is clear to me that it refers to all guns.


Who here believes that the current state of gun laws and the proliferation of guns and their misuse meets the definition of well regulated?

I am unaware of how to keep the constitutionality of the 2nd without infringing on other rights through regulation. They seem contradictory. Certainly there is interpretation needed to say what regulation is "well".

1993 had approximately 1.5 million gun victims, 2011 had 467,000. Does this mean we did a better job of regulating since 1993?
 Probably. (https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx )

Is it good enough that 1 incident per 100 people per year meets the requirement of well regulated? I say no, while admittedly I have very few ideas as to how to make it better(while still being allowed to keep MY guns). But the bigger point is that the 2nd amendment does not allow the government to do NOTHING if the well regulated clause is not met. They MUST regulate my rights away to maintain a well regulated militia.




ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #416 on: October 19, 2017, 07:32:30 AM »
I would like to approach the gun debate from a different angle, that being the words in the amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The way I see this sentence, the government shall not infringe on a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA". If you disagree with this premise, please share your rationale, because it is critical understanding for the remainder of my post.

I believe current gun laws are unconstitutional, because they are not regulated enough. Proper regulation is a REQUIREMENT to avoid infringing on this right. It doesn't say people MUST be allowed to have guns, and the government MAY regulate them. It clearly says they MUST regulate them well. Nowhere in this amendment does it state we only care about the guns that kill people or are used in crimes. It is clear to me that it refers to all guns.


Who here believes that the current state of gun laws and the proliferation of guns and their misuse meets the definition of well regulated?

I am unaware of how to keep the constitutionality of the 2nd without infringing on other rights through regulation. They seem contradictory. Certainly there is interpretation needed to say what regulation is "well".

1993 had approximately 1.5 million gun victims, 2011 had 467,000. Does this mean we did a better job of regulating since 1993?
 Probably. (https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx )

Is it good enough that 1 incident per 100 people per year meets the requirement of well regulated? I say no, while admittedly I have very few ideas as to how to make it better(while still being allowed to keep MY guns). But the bigger point is that the 2nd amendment does not allow the government to do NOTHING if the well regulated clause is not met. They MUST regulate my rights away to maintain a well regulated militia.

See below from page 7, bolding emphasis mine:


GuitarStv makes good points about the possible results of having militias, as specified in the Second Amendment. Will all militias cooperate? Most of the problems in the Middle East are caused by militias. The Second Amendment implies that gun ownership does not mean much unless gun owners are part of a trained, disciplined militia, as opposed to an undisciplined rabble. When the US Constitution was drafted, there was no US army, and militias, usually anti British, took the place of an army. And in reverse, once the new US state had an army, why does it need militias?

The Second Amendment is a privilege, and with privilege comes responsibility. It is a two way street.

Lets stop with the revisionism. The accepted definition at the time the constitution was written was that 'militia' was the population of fighting age individuals... not specific established groups. With the correct definition of the time in mind, and supported by numerous letters and recorded discussions, it's clear the 2nd was meant to be an individuals right.

Interesting. If what you say is true, that could sway me in at least some of the argument.

Can you point me to the evidence backing your claims?

Thanks

Rightflyer, here is the summary of the Heller decision from 2008.  In this decision's majority opinion, "militia" is any able-bodied male capable of providing for the common defense.  This goes back to a 1939 Court decision backed by laws and interpretations as early as 1811.  He also goes into detail that the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment and a few other places in the Constitution make it clear that those laws are directed at individual rights and nothing requiring a collective of people.  He cited an 1825 Court case where the majority opinion equated that a person is responsible for abuses of the 1st Amendment in the same way he is responsible for abuses of the 2nd Amendment.  The implication there is that you can't be individually responsible for abusing a right unless it's an individual right to begin with.  He admits the wording of the Amendment is a bit odd, but grammatically it would be the same as to say "the individual right to bear arms shall not be infringed so that we can have a well-regulated militia."  The militia is not a requirement to keep and bear arms, but rather a benefit of that right.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO

It's like if an amendment said "The ability to share one's ideas with the world being necessary to a great civilization, the right to free speech shall not be infringed." This doesn't mean you have to share your ideas with the entire world in order for your speech to be protected. It means your ability to speak freely is protected, at least in part so that people can share their ideas with the world.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2017, 07:40:51 AM by ooeei »

radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 538
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #417 on: October 19, 2017, 08:48:45 AM »


Thank you for your response. Looks like I have some more reading to do:)


robartsd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #418 on: October 19, 2017, 09:01:49 AM »
http://www.smh.com.au/national/investigations/record-gun-sales-bring-australias-firearm-arsenal-to-highest-level-since-the-port-arthur-massacre-20160427-goftbj.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4482924/Teens-using-World-War-guns.html
Nice reality check on the idea that the gun problem has been solved by regulation in the UK and Austrailia.

I wonder if the gun club situation in Austrialia would be considered by US gun control activists as meeting their percieved need for gun owners to be part of a "well regulated militia". I certainly think gun owners who show that they practice with the weapon regularly are more likely to use it effectively and safely in a self defence situation. They may also be less likely to be nuts who go off the hinges and kill a bunch of innocents.

Wolfpack Mustacian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #419 on: October 21, 2017, 03:07:33 PM »

You seem to be making the assumption that having a gun = freedom.  I don't believe not having a gun makes me less free, in fact not having a gun frees me from all sorts of things, such as the expense, the need to keep it safe, and the worry that it would be used against me, would be involved in an accident or would be used to commit suicide. 

Would the right to have a gun make me more free?  I don't believe that either, in fact it would make me less free because everyone else would have that right, a large number of them would exercise it, and I would be less free for instance to knock at someone's door without worrying about getting shot through it or be at risk of someone at my place of work going postal.

Gun = Freedom is not an unquestionable rule.

I appreciate your perspective here. I am definitely on the same page with you that freedom has more nuance to it than I was using. I am not really with you on the extrapolations of that with guns, of course :), but I see what you're saying. What I'm getting at with my discussion on freedom is that the government using the force of law to restrict me from doing something with the penalty of jail is certainly a restriction of my freedom. We could go back and forth about a trade off of your freedom to live in a country where there are less guns and whether it's worth it or not. That would seem to be a focal point of the debate. However, the freedom to live in a country without guns is a more, hmm, I would say indirect tie into freedom. It's a freedom that requires restriction of other people's actions. The freedom to own a gun is not a restriction on someone else's action by the government. I can't think of a good analogy now, but that's more what I'm meaning. The government restricts my actions all the time, but I'm going to almost always lean on the side of there needing to be a compelling argument for them to say if you do - fill in the blank - you will go to jail.

Wolfpack Mustacian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #420 on: October 21, 2017, 03:12:20 PM »

So I'll share my viewpoint on your thoughts here Wolf.

For me, the issue here comes down to that I view the inherent purpose of guns and what I hear the vast majority of people who argue to own them with as few restrictions as possible to be heavily based on what I view as bad reasons.  Very few people argue the hunting angle when I talk with them.  The argue some variation of "I need a gun to protect myself from bad hombres and the apocalypse", so that clearly means that their primary driver for owning a gun is ton inflict harm or to threaten to inflict harm on someone else.  I do understand that this is couched in the fact that they are not going to take that step except out of self defense, or at least we assume that.  However, when you boil it down, the driver to own the gun can in no way be shaped as something we would all smile at as wonderful, joyful and fun.  It is instead wrapped in fear, anxiety and paranoia.

So therefore when guns are lined up against something else, like alcohol, car exhaust or something else, that is not engaged in or desired from a mainly negative perspective it just does not resonate with me.  It becomes a false equivalency because the disconnect on what drives most partakers in the other thing being compared to a gun overrides everything else.  Most people who like alcohol enjoy the camaraderie of meeting their friends at a bar, the taste of the drink, the way it helps them relax.  Most people who want a car, want it as others have already pointed out for transportation, to be able to see parts of the country they live in that that could not easily bike or walk to and to avoid the expense of air or rail travel and have more freedom of movement.  Far fewer people are drawn to alcohol primarily as a means to get stone drunk as a regular means to forget bad memories or to toss into a burglars eyes to allow them to get away.  Far fewer people want a car to be able to run away from a dangerous city or to allow for escape in the event of a mugging.  Again, the primary motivator of ownership or participation of most things is positive, but for most gun owners I have spoken with it is negative.  It is protection from individuals, governments, tyranny.  Even the hunters I know have those things high on their list along with the pleasure they get from hunting. 

So because I view the primary motivator of a gun to be negative I am more comfortable restricting their freedoms than I would be for something whose purpose and desire for ownership is not to harm someone or something (even if it's just a paper target) and the assumption that I want one because one day I may need to threaten to cause that harm.  To be clear, I feel the same way about any weapon, not just guns.  I need a steak knife, but I do not need to own a ninja spear.  And for me there is a difference because of the lethality of guns versus other weapons.  As several have mentioned, 500+ people would have been a lot harder to injure with a knife or a bow and arrow.  So the magnitude of the damage that can be wreaked has to factor in to how we regulate something.  To jump on to the crazy tangent earlier, it's why it is (and should be) really hard to procure a nuclear bomb versus a firecracker or a pop rock.  Again the false equivalency that a gun is just a tool and should be regulated no more than a hammer or a drill or a screwdriver is a far reach for me.  It's a tool capable (and specifically designed) to cause far more damage.  I could beat you to death with a hammer, but it's a lot easier with a gun where I do not even need to get near you.

And as former player said, I do not feel less free because I do not own a gun, nor would I feel more free because I did.  I feel the same way about whether or not I can own my bicycle or my breakfast cereal.  It does not impact my level of freedom feeling.

Caracarn, thanks for your perspective on this. I can definitely see what you're saying here. I think the perspective on guns is a huge factor in people's views on them. I was talking with a friend recently, and we were discussing how the implications of the use of guns via geography is a huge factor in people's feelings on this discussion. Where I live, I hear gun shots all the time, but I have no fear of them (other than a very minor one of people potentially not knowing how far the bullet is going to go). I hear people shoot all the time, and it's just people target practicing out in the country if it's in bursts or trying to kill a deer if it's single shots. People in Chicago who hear a gun shot know someone probably got hurt or died when they heard it. Not saying this is the crux of your perspective, just that I can certainly see how the view of guns as negative versus positive has a huge impact in how we see the issue.

Wolfpack Mustacian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #421 on: October 21, 2017, 03:24:29 PM »

Let me start by mentioning that I do have guns, and I exercise most of the rights that the government gives me (whether that be tax breaks or guns or Roth conversion ladders). I do not vote for tax breaks for the upper middle class, but I am not going to give the government more money in protest. Same goes for guns.

As I said, I'm not sure where the optimal compromise is between safety and freedom. For example, I think the seatbelt could be considered an infringement on your freedom, by taking time to put on and restricting your comfort as you fly down the road. However, I would say that most people agree it is a good law to have, because it saves many lives. So, we would have to see how many lives (percentage-wise) gun regulations save, and decided how much freedom is truly lost by them (is it a few seconds of work? Is it years of training? Obviously these are different). Then the courts and our flawless elected officials will have to have a reasonable, non-partisan, non-ultimatum discussion on where the best compromise lies.

So short answer, I don't know. I know I am not pleased with the current system, and would like the opportunity to observe other systems and weigh for myself if it is better or worse.

Thanks for your response, milkshake, and I see what you're saying about the balance between regulations and what actually helps. I was actually thinking more about your comments on like potentially restricting McDonald's and things depending on how it helped from a numbers standpoint saving lives. You expressed some of these ideas, but you are certainly not alone in the view that we should be able to restrict freedoms if it would help protect people from not just others but from themselves. That's a difficult concept for me to handle. I was curious about your thoughts and hoping others who are for more government restrictions than I am would explain how they, in their mind, have a dividing line of, we can do this, but THIS is certainly out of bounds. What are the bounds? We as a society collectively agree or at least don't get up in arms on some laws, like seat belt requirements for instance, because they do save lives. And people propose further restrictions all the time. Hate speech is a good example, especially in light of recent events. I hear many more people saying now more than ever in the past that we should restrict someone from being able to say something in public about this or that, and "this or that" may indeed be abhorrent, but they're proposing the government put laws to keep that from happening because it would help keep the environment from promoting hate or potential danger for certain groups or whatnot. You can argue that it's a reasonable restriction or not, but either way, it's a restriction. Please note, this is an example that I have no idea which way you would come down on, nor am I wanting to argue for or against it. It's just an example I see of people being willing to stomach or even promote restrictions in freedoms in a way I haven't seen them in the past, and my thoughts are, with changes like this, we really need to know, how and/or where would we draw the line on what's worth it or not in terms of restricting freedoms. Guns are one example of this playing out.

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 298
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #422 on: October 22, 2017, 03:39:15 PM »
I'm from NZ and I don't understand the USA gun thing. We have guns here, lots of them, but they're for farmers and hunters. Why else would you want one? You need a licence to own or use one and they're quite a drama to get. There are strict rules for where and how guns and ammunition can be kept. I can't think of a single reason why an ordinary citizen would need a handgun or a semi automatic, ever. We have the odd shooting, we've even had the odd mass shooting. It's rare. Our police aren't armed. We have a specialist armed police unit that can be called out but otherwise they rely on old fashioned policing ie having relationships in the community and great people skills.

I hear americans go on about their rights regarding guns quite a lot. Well, with rights come responsibilities. There's not so much talk about that.

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 121
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #423 on: October 23, 2017, 07:17:18 AM »

Let me start by mentioning that I do have guns, and I exercise most of the rights that the government gives me (whether that be tax breaks or guns or Roth conversion ladders). I do not vote for tax breaks for the upper middle class, but I am not going to give the government more money in protest. Same goes for guns.

As I said, I'm not sure where the optimal compromise is between safety and freedom. For example, I think the seatbelt could be considered an infringement on your freedom, by taking time to put on and restricting your comfort as you fly down the road. However, I would say that most people agree it is a good law to have, because it saves many lives. So, we would have to see how many lives (percentage-wise) gun regulations save, and decided how much freedom is truly lost by them (is it a few seconds of work? Is it years of training? Obviously these are different). Then the courts and our flawless elected officials will have to have a reasonable, non-partisan, non-ultimatum discussion on where the best compromise lies.

So short answer, I don't know. I know I am not pleased with the current system, and would like the opportunity to observe other systems and weigh for myself if it is better or worse.

Thanks for your response, milkshake, and I see what you're saying about the balance between regulations and what actually helps. I was actually thinking more about your comments on like potentially restricting McDonald's and things depending on how it helped from a numbers standpoint saving lives. You expressed some of these ideas, but you are certainly not alone in the view that we should be able to restrict freedoms if it would help protect people from not just others but from themselves. That's a difficult concept for me to handle. I was curious about your thoughts and hoping others who are for more government restrictions than I am would explain how they, in their mind, have a dividing line of, we can do this, but THIS is certainly out of bounds. What are the bounds? We as a society collectively agree or at least don't get up in arms on some laws, like seat belt requirements for instance, because they do save lives. And people propose further restrictions all the time. Hate speech is a good example, especially in light of recent events. I hear many more people saying now more than ever in the past that we should restrict someone from being able to say something in public about this or that, and "this or that" may indeed be abhorrent, but they're proposing the government put laws to keep that from happening because it would help keep the environment from promoting hate or potential danger for certain groups or whatnot. You can argue that it's a reasonable restriction or not, but either way, it's a restriction. Please note, this is an example that I have no idea which way you would come down on, nor am I wanting to argue for or against it. It's just an example I see of people being willing to stomach or even promote restrictions in freedoms in a way I haven't seen them in the past, and my thoughts are, with changes like this, we really need to know, how and/or where would we draw the line on what's worth it or not in terms of restricting freedoms. Guns are one example of this playing out.

So in regards to the McDonald's comment, the CDC says 610,000 people die each year from heart disease. If someone made a regulation on fast food or sugary soda or whatever, and the number of heart disease deaths dropped to 305,000 3 years later, would you be ok with not being allowed to go to McDonald's anymore, because 305,000 lives were saved? Even though you are probably responsible with your fast food consumption, others aren't. Are almost a third of a million lives worth the cost of a little bit of freedom? I would say yes. If you say no, what if that number was all 610,000? Would you still say no? If so, what number would be enough? What if cancer deaths happened to drop as well? What if that regulation saved 2 million lives per year? Is that worth your freedom?

No one has limitless freedom on any of the constitution's rights. You can't yell fire in a crowded building because it will cause panic and harm, despite your right to free speech.

Everyone has their own determination of when an individual freedom is no longer worth having, because of the loss of other lives due to less responsible people. You said you agree with the seatbelt restriction, because it saves lives. Where is your personal cutoff for loss of individual freedom vs lives saved?

Seeing it as freedoms lost might be difficult to stomach, but we all stomach a lot of it every single day to live in a civilized society.

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #424 on: October 23, 2017, 07:50:18 AM »
So in regards to the McDonald's comment, the CDC says 610,000 people die each year from heart disease. If someone made a regulation on fast food or sugary soda or whatever, and the number of heart disease deaths dropped to 305,000 3 years later, would you be ok with not being allowed to go to McDonald's anymore, because 305,000 lives were saved? Even though you are probably responsible with your fast food consumption, others aren't. Are almost a third of a million lives worth the cost of a little bit of freedom? I would say yes. If you say no, what if that number was all 610,000? Would you still say no? If so, what number would be enough? What if cancer deaths happened to drop as well? What if that regulation saved 2 million lives per year? Is that worth your freedom?

No one has limitless freedom on any of the constitution's rights. You can't yell fire in a crowded building because it will cause panic and harm, despite your right to free speech.

Everyone has their own determination of when an individual freedom is no longer worth having, because of the loss of other lives due to less responsible people. You said you agree with the seatbelt restriction, because it saves lives. Where is your personal cutoff for loss of individual freedom vs lives saved?

Seeing it as freedoms lost might be difficult to stomach, but we all stomach a lot of it every single day to live in a civilized society.
To take us further away from gun control :) I would add that banning McDonald's sounds great to me but to actually put that into law you can't ban "McDonalds" or even "Fast Food" because then you need a definition of fast food. Fast casual generally isn't very healthy either, or pub food or really restaurant food in general. On the other hand most fast food restaurants serve salads and a few other healthy-ish things.

Then if you get into the realm of banning specific ingredients, well most ingredients aren't really unhealthy in moderation. Then you have disagreement in the nutrition community regarding what is and isn't healthy. Then you have differences in body chemistry so that something unhealthy for one person may be less so for another.

If there actually was some way to force people to be healthy to their own benefit that would be great but in my opinion the idea of banning fast food isn't really worth discussing. Limiting soft drink sizes, maybe a step in the right direction?

Of course if the purpose of the banning fast food discussion is solely to gauge how individuals in this conversation feel about limiting freedoms and if the ends justify the means then I guess - carry on.

Oh and that last line, I wish more people recognized that. I think what people really fear is change. The current limits, well those are fine but any additional limits = Unconstitutional!

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #425 on: October 23, 2017, 07:57:04 AM »
I'm from NZ and I don't understand the USA gun thing. We have guns here, lots of them, but they're for farmers and hunters. Why else would you want one? You need a licence to own or use one and they're quite a drama to get. There are strict rules for where and how guns and ammunition can be kept. I can't think of a single reason why an ordinary citizen would need a handgun or a semi automatic, ever.

Have you read any of the posts in this thread?

 
Quote
We have the odd shooting, we've even had the odd mass shooting. It's rare. Our police aren't armed. We have a specialist armed police unit that can be called out but otherwise they rely on old fashioned policing ie having relationships in the community and great people skills.

I hear americans go on about their rights regarding guns quite a lot. Well, with rights come responsibilities. There's not so much talk about that.

New Zealand has 4 million people. The US has 300 million.

Assuming we had exactly the same rates of violence, we'd expect things to happen roughly 1/100 as often in New Zealand.  Using New Zealand as an example of what the US should be doing is like someone in Ponca City Oklahoma saying they just don't get why Chicago has so many problems, because Ponca City doesn't have them.

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 121
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #426 on: October 23, 2017, 08:21:58 AM »
To take us further away from gun control :) I would add that banning McDonald's sounds great to me but to actually put that into law you can't ban "McDonalds" or even "Fast Food" because then you need a definition of fast food. Fast casual generally isn't very healthy either, or pub food or really restaurant food in general. On the other hand most fast food restaurants serve salads and a few other healthy-ish things.

Then if you get into the realm of banning specific ingredients, well most ingredients aren't really unhealthy in moderation. Then you have disagreement in the nutrition community regarding what is and isn't healthy. Then you have differences in body chemistry so that something unhealthy for one person may be less so for another.

If there actually was some way to force people to be healthy to their own benefit that would be great but in my opinion the idea of banning fast food isn't really worth discussing. Limiting soft drink sizes, maybe a step in the right direction?

Of course if the purpose of the banning fast food discussion is solely to gauge how individuals in this conversation feel about limiting freedoms and if the ends justify the means then I guess - carry on.

Oh and that last line, I wish more people recognized that. I think what people really fear is change. The current limits, well those are fine but any additional limits = Unconstitutional!
You are definitely right, there is no way to ban unhealthy food because nearly everything is healthy in moderation, and unless we start rationing all food, there's no way to control that. The controlling food argument is just to illustrate the point.

Essentially, we have to place a value on life. That is difficult to do, especially depending on who's life you're talking about. My life is much more important to me than pretty much anyone else's life is. Most people think the same way, otherwise people wouldn't change their minds after they get shot by someone, or are directly affected by whatever the bad situation is.

Sure gun deaths don't kill that many people relative to other stuff, but those are real, living people with families, children, spouses and parents. They go to work, they play football at Thanksgiving. But they aren't me, they aren't you, they are just some statistic. I guess for me, a little bit of freedom and time is ok to give up, to let them be able to keep doing those things.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9311
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #427 on: October 23, 2017, 08:44:26 AM »
To take us further away from gun control :) I would add that banning McDonald's sounds great to me but to actually put that into law you can't ban "McDonalds" or even "Fast Food" because then you need a definition of fast food. Fast casual generally isn't very healthy either, or pub food or really restaurant food in general. On the other hand most fast food restaurants serve salads and a few other healthy-ish things.

Then if you get into the realm of banning specific ingredients, well most ingredients aren't really unhealthy in moderation. Then you have disagreement in the nutrition community regarding what is and isn't healthy. Then you have differences in body chemistry so that something unhealthy for one person may be less so for another.

If there actually was some way to force people to be healthy to their own benefit that would be great but in my opinion the idea of banning fast food isn't really worth discussing. Limiting soft drink sizes, maybe a step in the right direction?

Of course if the purpose of the banning fast food discussion is solely to gauge how individuals in this conversation feel about limiting freedoms and if the ends justify the means then I guess - carry on.

Oh and that last line, I wish more people recognized that. I think what people really fear is change. The current limits, well those are fine but any additional limits = Unconstitutional!
You are definitely right, there is no way to ban unhealthy food because nearly everything is healthy in moderation, and unless we start rationing all food, there's no way to control that. The controlling food argument is just to illustrate the point.

Essentially, we have to place a value on life. That is difficult to do, especially depending on who's life you're talking about. My life is much more important to me than pretty much anyone else's life is. Most people think the same way, otherwise people wouldn't change their minds after they get shot by someone, or are directly affected by whatever the bad situation is.

Sure gun deaths don't kill that many people relative to other stuff, but those are real, living people with families, children, spouses and parents. They go to work, they play football at Thanksgiving. But they aren't me, they aren't you, they are just some statistic. I guess for me, a little bit of freedom and time is ok to give up, to let them be able to keep doing those things.

I think that a reasonable approach to the fast food problem would be to place restrictions on the nutritional content of food that is sold.  Then let the restaurants make and sell whatever they want that meets those restrictions.

iris lily

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #428 on: October 23, 2017, 08:56:42 AM »
To take us further away from gun control :) I would add that banning McDonald's sounds great to me but to actually put that into law you can't ban "McDonalds" or even "Fast Food" because then you need a definition of fast food. Fast casual generally isn't very healthy either, or pub food or really restaurant food in general. On the other hand most fast food restaurants serve salads and a few other healthy-ish things.

Then if you get into the realm of banning specific ingredients, well most ingredients aren't really unhealthy in moderation. Then you have disagreement in the nutrition community regarding what is and isn't healthy. Then you have differences in body chemistry so that something unhealthy for one person may be less so for another.

If there actually was some way to force people to be healthy to their own benefit that would be great but in my opinion the idea of banning fast food isn't really worth discussing. Limiting soft drink sizes, maybe a step in the right direction?

Of course if the purpose of the banning fast food discussion is solely to gauge how individuals in this conversation feel about limiting freedoms and if the ends justify the means then I guess - carry on.

Oh and that last line, I wish more people recognized that. I think what people really fear is change. The current limits, well those are fine but any additional limits = Unconstitutional!
You are definitely right, there is no way to ban unhealthy food because nearly everything is healthy in moderation, and unless we start rationing all food, there's no way to control that. The controlling food argument is just to illustrate the point.

Essentially, we have to place a value on life. That is difficult to do, especially depending on who's life you're talking about. My life is much more important to me than pretty much anyone else's life is. Most people think the same way, otherwise people wouldn't change their minds after they get shot by someone, or are directly affected by whatever the bad situation is.

Sure gun deaths don't kill that many people relative to other stuff, but those are real, living people with families, children, spouses and parents. They go to work, they play football at Thanksgiving. But they aren't me, they aren't you, they are just some statistic. I guess for me, a little bit of freedom and time is ok to give up, to let them be able to keep doing those things.

I think that a reasonable approach to the fast food problem would be to place restrictions on the nutritional content of food that is sold.  Then let the restaurants make and sell whatever they want that meets those restrictions.

Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?

PriestTheRunner

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 427
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #429 on: October 23, 2017, 09:04:50 AM »
To take us further away from gun control :) I would add that banning McDonald's sounds great to me but to actually put that into law you can't ban "McDonalds" or even "Fast Food" because then you need a definition of fast food. Fast casual generally isn't very healthy either, or pub food or really restaurant food in general. On the other hand most fast food restaurants serve salads and a few other healthy-ish things.

Then if you get into the realm of banning specific ingredients, well most ingredients aren't really unhealthy in moderation. Then you have disagreement in the nutrition community regarding what is and isn't healthy. Then you have differences in body chemistry so that something unhealthy for one person may be less so for another.

If there actually was some way to force people to be healthy to their own benefit that would be great but in my opinion the idea of banning fast food isn't really worth discussing. Limiting soft drink sizes, maybe a step in the right direction?

Of course if the purpose of the banning fast food discussion is solely to gauge how individuals in this conversation feel about limiting freedoms and if the ends justify the means then I guess - carry on.

Oh and that last line, I wish more people recognized that. I think what people really fear is change. The current limits, well those are fine but any additional limits = Unconstitutional!
You are definitely right, there is no way to ban unhealthy food because nearly everything is healthy in moderation, and unless we start rationing all food, there's no way to control that. The controlling food argument is just to illustrate the point.

Essentially, we have to place a value on life. That is difficult to do, especially depending on who's life you're talking about. My life is much more important to me than pretty much anyone else's life is. Most people think the same way, otherwise people wouldn't change their minds after they get shot by someone, or are directly affected by whatever the bad situation is.

Sure gun deaths don't kill that many people relative to other stuff, but those are real, living people with families, children, spouses and parents. They go to work, they play football at Thanksgiving. But they aren't me, they aren't you, they are just some statistic. I guess for me, a little bit of freedom and time is ok to give up, to let them be able to keep doing those things.

I think that a reasonable approach to the fast food problem would be to place restrictions on the nutritional content of food that is sold.  Then let the restaurants make and sell whatever they want that meets those restrictions.

Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?

Similar to the vein of thought on the gun discussion-

You can not have a pistol with a clip greater than 10 rounds (now defunct law, but the points the same) but you can buy 30 clips no-problem!  It is a short-sided solution that doesn't take into account both sides' point of view and is another 'step' towards restricting gun rights.

Some people are OK with excessive regulation.  I prefer to have the absolute minimum possible without the infringement of rights.

(Example Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-capacity_magazine_ban )
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9311
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #430 on: October 23, 2017, 09:30:22 AM »
To take us further away from gun control :) I would add that banning McDonald's sounds great to me but to actually put that into law you can't ban "McDonalds" or even "Fast Food" because then you need a definition of fast food. Fast casual generally isn't very healthy either, or pub food or really restaurant food in general. On the other hand most fast food restaurants serve salads and a few other healthy-ish things.

Then if you get into the realm of banning specific ingredients, well most ingredients aren't really unhealthy in moderation. Then you have disagreement in the nutrition community regarding what is and isn't healthy. Then you have differences in body chemistry so that something unhealthy for one person may be less so for another.

If there actually was some way to force people to be healthy to their own benefit that would be great but in my opinion the idea of banning fast food isn't really worth discussing. Limiting soft drink sizes, maybe a step in the right direction?

Of course if the purpose of the banning fast food discussion is solely to gauge how individuals in this conversation feel about limiting freedoms and if the ends justify the means then I guess - carry on.

Oh and that last line, I wish more people recognized that. I think what people really fear is change. The current limits, well those are fine but any additional limits = Unconstitutional!
You are definitely right, there is no way to ban unhealthy food because nearly everything is healthy in moderation, and unless we start rationing all food, there's no way to control that. The controlling food argument is just to illustrate the point.

Essentially, we have to place a value on life. That is difficult to do, especially depending on who's life you're talking about. My life is much more important to me than pretty much anyone else's life is. Most people think the same way, otherwise people wouldn't change their minds after they get shot by someone, or are directly affected by whatever the bad situation is.

Sure gun deaths don't kill that many people relative to other stuff, but those are real, living people with families, children, spouses and parents. They go to work, they play football at Thanksgiving. But they aren't me, they aren't you, they are just some statistic. I guess for me, a little bit of freedom and time is ok to give up, to let them be able to keep doing those things.

I think that a reasonable approach to the fast food problem would be to place restrictions on the nutritional content of food that is sold.  Then let the restaurants make and sell whatever they want that meets those restrictions.

Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?

No.  But I didn't suggest "life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint" in my post.    :P


Nutritional content can be regulated in a variety of ways.  A simple example off the top of my head:

Having more fiber in your diet is good for you.  Having more fiber in your diet brings on feeling of satiety sooner.  People will naturally feel more full and choose on their own to eat less fast food if you were to increase fiber content, with the side benefit of reduced colon cancer along with a variety of other health improvements.

You could therefore specify a restriction that for a given quantity of calories a given amount of fiber must be included in a menu item.  There are a variety of ways that restaurants could approach this regulation . . . from psyllium fiber food additives which make virtually no difference to taste/texture of processed meals and desserts, to using more whole grains, to offering more fruit/vegetables in each meal sold.  It's up to the individual restaurants how to choose to meet the requirements, but anyone eating at the restaurants will reap the benefits without being prevented from ordering food (which is a heavy handed way to regulate).

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #431 on: October 23, 2017, 09:51:10 AM »
To take us further away from gun control :) I would add that banning McDonald's sounds great to me but to actually put that into law you can't ban "McDonalds" or even "Fast Food" because then you need a definition of fast food. Fast casual generally isn't very healthy either, or pub food or really restaurant food in general. On the other hand most fast food restaurants serve salads and a few other healthy-ish things.

Then if you get into the realm of banning specific ingredients, well most ingredients aren't really unhealthy in moderation. Then you have disagreement in the nutrition community regarding what is and isn't healthy. Then you have differences in body chemistry so that something unhealthy for one person may be less so for another.

If there actually was some way to force people to be healthy to their own benefit that would be great but in my opinion the idea of banning fast food isn't really worth discussing. Limiting soft drink sizes, maybe a step in the right direction?

Of course if the purpose of the banning fast food discussion is solely to gauge how individuals in this conversation feel about limiting freedoms and if the ends justify the means then I guess - carry on.

Oh and that last line, I wish more people recognized that. I think what people really fear is change. The current limits, well those are fine but any additional limits = Unconstitutional!
You are definitely right, there is no way to ban unhealthy food because nearly everything is healthy in moderation, and unless we start rationing all food, there's no way to control that. The controlling food argument is just to illustrate the point.

Essentially, we have to place a value on life. That is difficult to do, especially depending on who's life you're talking about. My life is much more important to me than pretty much anyone else's life is. Most people think the same way, otherwise people wouldn't change their minds after they get shot by someone, or are directly affected by whatever the bad situation is.

Sure gun deaths don't kill that many people relative to other stuff, but those are real, living people with families, children, spouses and parents. They go to work, they play football at Thanksgiving. But they aren't me, they aren't you, they are just some statistic. I guess for me, a little bit of freedom and time is ok to give up, to let them be able to keep doing those things.

I think that a reasonable approach to the fast food problem would be to place restrictions on the nutritional content of food that is sold.  Then let the restaurants make and sell whatever they want that meets those restrictions.

Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?

Similar to the vein of thought on the gun discussion-

You can not have a pistol with a clip greater than 10 rounds (now defunct law, but the points the same) but you can buy 30 clips no-problem!  It is a short-sided solution that doesn't take into account both sides' point of view and is another 'step' towards restricting gun rights.

Some people are OK with excessive regulation.  I prefer to have the absolute minimum possible without the infringement of rights.

(Example Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-capacity_magazine_ban )
Restrictions of this nature wouldn't be to forcefully limit consumption but rather to influence human behavior. If people are served smaller portions they are likely to eat smaller portions. You can even give people a smaller plate to serve themselves and typically they eat less. Or making a similar food item with slightly better for your health ingredients, people would still buy 1 and eat 1. I'm not advocating this, just explaining the position the way I understand it.

What I think could be effective is disallowing increased purchase incentives like "supersizing it". Someone wants a burger, fries and a drink and they can get it for $5.99. Or they can get slightly more fries and drink for just $0.30 more. Or more than that for another $0.20. These small incremental increases look like a good deal because the next unit of fries/drink is so much cheaper than the first unit but chances are most people don't even want or enjoy the extra fries and drink, but they do eat them because they're right there on the table. And the drastically reduced price for the extras still works out for the restaurant because fries and drink cost them pennies to produce.

Still not sure making rules against it is the best route to go because I could make similar arguments for a lot of marketing tactics, just doing some brainstorming.


Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 121
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #432 on: October 23, 2017, 11:00:17 AM »
Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Not to derail this thread further, but iris lily, if those regulations could be directly attributed to saving hundreds of thousands of lives, would you be ok with it? Millions of lives?

Obviously "directly attributed" is the operative phrase here. But that is the basis of the argument. Assuming we can prove that we can make regulations that have such grand effects, how many lives is your freedom worth? Put a value on someone else's life. That is what we are asking.

What the actual regulations are that qualify as "directly attributed" do not matter at this point in the debate, because we need to know what an acceptable amount of freedom is ok to give up to save lives.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9311
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #433 on: October 23, 2017, 11:40:34 AM »
Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Not to derail this thread further, but iris lily, if those regulations could be directly attributed to saving hundreds of thousands of lives, would you be ok with it? Millions of lives?

Obviously "directly attributed" is the operative phrase here. But that is the basis of the argument. Assuming we can prove that we can make regulations that have such grand effects, how many lives is your freedom worth? Put a value on someone else's life. That is what we are asking.

What the actual regulations are that qualify as "directly attributed" do not matter at this point in the debate, because we need to know what an acceptable amount of freedom is ok to give up to save lives.

While I get the point that you're trying to make, I think that this is an unfair question to pose.

It casts people (who may be completely reasonable) on the side of gun control in a bad light.  There are always going to be a variety of issues where an acceptable number of deaths happen to accommodate freedom, and an acceptable loss of freedom happens to minimize deaths.  Implying that people on the side of gun control are heartless bastards because they differ from others on this single issue is not a productive way to move the conversation forward.  Currently we've prioritized the freedom to burn fossil fuels for personal automobile usage over the lives of the hundreds of thousands who die from the exhaust produced by cars every year.  I suspect that many of the people in favor of gun control would be unwilling to give up their ability to drive . . . even though it certainly would save lives.

iris lily

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #434 on: October 23, 2017, 02:06:55 PM »
Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Not to derail this thread further, but iris lily, if those regulations could be directly attributed to saving hundreds of thousands of lives, would you be ok with it? Millions of lives?


Obviously "directly attributed" is the operative phrase here. But that is the basis of the argument. Assuming we can prove that we can make regulations that have such grand effects, how many lives is your freedom worth? Put a value on someone else's life. That is what we are asking.

What the actual regulations are that qualify as "directly attributed" do not matter at this point in the debate, because we need to know what an acceptable amount of freedom is ok to give up to save lives.

No.

No.

No.

My freedom is prcieless, as is yours. See? It works for both of us. And any risk is for both of us.

« Last Edit: October 23, 2017, 02:08:35 PM by iris lily »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9311
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #435 on: October 23, 2017, 02:23:19 PM »
Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Not to derail this thread further, but iris lily, if those regulations could be directly attributed to saving hundreds of thousands of lives, would you be ok with it? Millions of lives?


Obviously "directly attributed" is the operative phrase here. But that is the basis of the argument. Assuming we can prove that we can make regulations that have such grand effects, how many lives is your freedom worth? Put a value on someone else's life. That is what we are asking.

What the actual regulations are that qualify as "directly attributed" do not matter at this point in the debate, because we need to know what an acceptable amount of freedom is ok to give up to save lives.

No.

No.

No.

My freedom is prcieless, as is yours. See? It works for both of us. And any risk is for both of us.

Well, now you're just being silly.  You trade freedom for safety all the time.

You aren't free to drive on the left side of the road, or to ignore traffic lights.  You aren't free to walk into your neighbour's house and take his milk.  You're not free to joke about having a bomb at an airport.  If you try to exercise these freedoms you're liable to end up in jail.

Freedom clearly isn't priceless.

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 634
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #436 on: October 23, 2017, 02:47:17 PM »
What about our freedom to not have to pay for the diabetes supplies and bariatric surgeries for those Mickey Dees addicted people?  We're interconnected, even without Obamacare insurance companies have to take into account these "risk takers."

Should I have to serve a black person in my restaurant?  My freedom is being impinged upon here, is it not?  Where does freedom begin, where does it end?

I believe I have a right to not be randomly shot at by nuts with guns.  Lack of regulation and responsible practices contribute greatly this risk.  Think guns are regulated and people held responsible?  Who has the guns, how many, and what are they?  There doesn't seem to be a whole lot stopping anybody from acquiring military grade weapons and going on a shooting spree.  Should I be allowed to drive a tank to work if I'm not in the military?  Why the hell is there a need to buy and sell military rifles?  The Bushmaster Adam Lanza used could pierce armor-what is the purpose here?  His mother sure was "responsible" keeping the gun in a safe-but at the same home her mentally unstable son lived-who had total access!  There's a point where our freedom's intersect and a compromise has to be made.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2017, 03:43:48 PM by Johnez »

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 121
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #437 on: October 23, 2017, 03:06:52 PM »
While I get the point that you're trying to make, I think that this is an unfair question to pose.

It casts people (who may be completely reasonable) on the side of gun control in a bad light.  There are always going to be a variety of issues where an acceptable number of deaths happen to accommodate freedom, and an acceptable loss of freedom happens to minimize deaths.  Implying that people on the side of gun control are heartless bastards because they differ from others on this single issue is not a productive way to move the conversation forward.  Currently we've prioritized the freedom to burn fossil fuels for personal automobile usage over the lives of the hundreds of thousands who die from the exhaust produced by cars every year.  I suspect that many of the people in favor of gun control would be unwilling to give up their ability to drive . . . even though it certainly would save lives.

The point was that we do trade freedom for lives all the time, but at the same time we trade lives for freedom (as you've said). Thus, both freedom and lives have an intrinsic value, that is assigned by an individual, and different lives have different values to each person. I wasn't putting a bad light on gun control advocates, I was asking for iris lily's personal value of freedom.

I'm not saying we need to save every life, that isn't possible or practical.

No.

No.

No.

My freedom is prcieless, as is yours. See? It works for both of us. And any risk is for both of us.

Lol, you're kidding me right? I laughed out loud at work. So if someone shoots your family, their freedom is as priceless as yours right? They can't go to jail, that's infringing on their priceless freedom. Try robbing a bank, and let the cops know that your freedom is priceless. They'll laugh and read you your Miranda rights and slap handcuffs on.

I can't even understand your thought process for saying that. It makes no sense. Do you drive the speed limit? Do you follow any law ever made? Maybe you are trolling me?

robartsd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #438 on: October 23, 2017, 03:58:45 PM »
Lol, you're kidding me right? I laughed out loud at work. So if someone shoots your family, their freedom is as priceless as yours right? They can't go to jail, that's infringing on their priceless freedom. Try robbing a bank, and let the cops know that your freedom is priceless. They'll laugh and read you your Miranda rights and slap handcuffs on.

I can't even understand your thought process for saying that. It makes no sense. Do you drive the speed limit? Do you follow any law ever made? Maybe you are trolling me?
Milkshake, don't strawman Iris Lily's point of view. Iris lily never said he was against punishing people who have harmed others. He is just absolutely against restricting people before they harm others. At the other end of the spectrum from iris lily's point of view is the idealistic belief that we should do everything possible to protect everyone from harm even if it means a total lack of freedom.

iris lily

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #439 on: October 23, 2017, 04:03:10 PM »
Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Not to derail this thread further, but iris lily, if those regulations could be directly attributed to saving hundreds of thousands of lives, would you be ok with it? Millions of lives?


Obviously "directly attributed" is the operative phrase here. But that is the basis of the argument. Assuming we can prove that we can make regulations that have such grand effects, how many lives is your freedom worth? Put a value on someone else's life. That is what we are asking.

What the actual regulations are that qualify as "directly attributed" do not matter at this point in the debate, because we need to know what an acceptable amount of freedom is ok to give up to save lives.

No.

No.

No.

My freedom is prcieless, as is yours. See? It works for both of us. And any risk is for both of us.

Well, now you're just being silly.  You trade freedom for safety all the time.

You aren't free to drive on the left side of the road, or to ignore traffic lights.  You aren't free to walk into your neighbour's house and take his milk.  You're not free to joke about having a bomb at an airport.  If you try to exercise these freedoms you're liable to end up in jail.

Freedom clearly isn't priceless.

Maybe not practical, but the idea is that the freedom we are born with ( inalienable rights) doesn't have a price tag. An effective government will protext that freedom.

Where the rubber  meets the road is your "protection" vs my definition of "protection."

I dont expect to add anything meaningful to the dialog of gun control, I was answering the question directed to me personally. No, I don't think that the example of highly controlled fast food for the theoretical salvage of millions of lives is worth the trade offs. That particular legislation is a big NO for me.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2017, 05:34:27 PM by iris lily »

Travis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1795
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #440 on: October 23, 2017, 05:11:44 PM »
Why the hell is there a need to buy and sell military rifles?  The Bushmaster Adam Lanza used could pierce armor-what is the purpose here? 

Civilians do not have access to armor-piercing ammunition. Just stop right there.  AR-style rifles fire .223 Remington which is similar, but not identical to the ammunition chambered for the M-16/M-4 which is 5.56mm in caliber.  The .223 was designed for the civilian market in the US before any military rifle was designed to use the 5.56mm.  If I were to take a 5.56mm military cartridge and stick it in a civilian rifle chambered for .223 it could blow up in my face from excessive pressure.  5.56mm comes in an armor-piercing variety, but it is not standard issue even to soldiers.  In 19 years in the Army I've never seen a single round of it.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2017, 05:15:40 PM by Travis »
My Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/will-i-or-won't-i-a-home-run-or-a-base-hit/

Unlike some other tech companies or skilled-labor industries, we're always hiring.

www.goarmy.com

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #441 on: October 24, 2017, 07:00:03 AM »
Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Not to derail this thread further, but iris lily, if those regulations could be directly attributed to saving hundreds of thousands of lives, would you be ok with it? Millions of lives?


Obviously "directly attributed" is the operative phrase here. But that is the basis of the argument. Assuming we can prove that we can make regulations that have such grand effects, how many lives is your freedom worth? Put a value on someone else's life. That is what we are asking.

What the actual regulations are that qualify as "directly attributed" do not matter at this point in the debate, because we need to know what an acceptable amount of freedom is ok to give up to save lives.

No.

No.

No.

My freedom is prcieless, as is yours. See? It works for both of us. And any risk is for both of us.

Well, now you're just being silly.  You trade freedom for safety all the time.

You aren't free to drive on the left side of the road, or to ignore traffic lights.  You aren't free to walk into your neighbour's house and take his milk.  You're not free to joke about having a bomb at an airport.  If you try to exercise these freedoms you're liable to end up in jail.

Freedom clearly isn't priceless.

Maybe not practical, but the idea is that the freedom we are born with ( inalienable rights) doesn't have a price tag. An effective government will protext that freedom.

Where the rubber  meets the road is your "protection" vs my definition of "protection."

I dont expect to add anything meaningful to the dialog of gun control, I was answering the question directed to me personally. No, I don't think that the example of highly controlled fast food for the theoretical salvage of millions of lives is worth the trade offs. That particular legislation is a big NO for me.
Remember, as the hypothetical question was posed these controls would definitively save lives, not theoretically.

Is your opinion on this based on an ideal world or are you making this determination based on current laws. I ask because as has been mentioned, if we're talking millions of lives being saved or even if those people just get healthier, that will have significant impacts on what everyone else pays for health insurance. So maybe in your ideal world we wouldn't have that interconnectedness but in the current world we do. Does that influence your opinion?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9311
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #442 on: October 24, 2017, 07:57:39 AM »
Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Not to derail this thread further, but iris lily, if those regulations could be directly attributed to saving hundreds of thousands of lives, would you be ok with it? Millions of lives?


Obviously "directly attributed" is the operative phrase here. But that is the basis of the argument. Assuming we can prove that we can make regulations that have such grand effects, how many lives is your freedom worth? Put a value on someone else's life. That is what we are asking.

What the actual regulations are that qualify as "directly attributed" do not matter at this point in the debate, because we need to know what an acceptable amount of freedom is ok to give up to save lives.

No.

No.

No.

My freedom is prcieless, as is yours. See? It works for both of us. And any risk is for both of us.

Well, now you're just being silly.  You trade freedom for safety all the time.

You aren't free to drive on the left side of the road, or to ignore traffic lights.  You aren't free to walk into your neighbour's house and take his milk.  You're not free to joke about having a bomb at an airport.  If you try to exercise these freedoms you're liable to end up in jail.

Freedom clearly isn't priceless.

Maybe not practical, but the idea is that the freedom we are born with ( inalienable rights) doesn't have a price tag. An effective government will protext that freedom.

Where the rubber  meets the road is your "protection" vs my definition of "protection."

Can you list exactly what your definition of inalienable rights is?

iris lily

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #443 on: October 24, 2017, 08:35:39 AM »
Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Not to derail this thread further, but iris lily, if those regulations could be directly attributed to saving hundreds of thousands of lives, would you be ok with it? Millions of lives?


Obviously "directly attributed" is the operative phrase here. But that is the basis of the argument. Assuming we can prove that we can make regulations that have such grand effects, how many lives is your freedom worth? Put a value on someone else's life. That is what we are asking.

What the actual regulations are that qualify as "directly attributed" do not matter at this point in the debate, because we need to know what an acceptable amount of freedom is ok to give up to save lives.

No.

No.

No.

My freedom is prcieless, as is yours. See? It works for both of us. And any risk is for both of us.

Well, now you're just being silly.  You trade freedom for safety all the time.

You aren't free to drive on the left side of the road, or to ignore traffic lights.  You aren't free to walk into your neighbour's house and take his milk.  You're not free to joke about having a bomb at an airport.  If you try to exercise these freedoms you're liable to end up in jail.

Freedom clearly isn't priceless.

Maybe not practical, but the idea is that the freedom we are born with ( inalienable rights) doesn't have a price tag. An effective government will protext that freedom.

Where the rubber  meets the road is your "protection" vs my definition of "protection."

I dont expect to add anything meaningful to the dialog of gun control, I was answering the question directed to me personally. No, I don't think that the example of highly controlled fast food for the theoretical salvage of millions of lives is worth the trade offs. That particular legislation is a big NO for me.
Remember, as the hypothetical question was posed these controls would definitively save lives, not theoretically.

Is your opinion on this based on an ideal world or are you making this determination based on current laws. I ask because as has been mentioned, if we're talking millions of lives being saved or even if those people just get healthier, that will have significant impacts on what everyone else pays for health insurance. So maybe in your ideal world we wouldn't have that interconnectedness but in the current world we do. Does that influence your opinion?

I can only respond to both the purely theoretical and the practical:

Theoretically, I dont think all actions that save lives are worth the resultantant loss of freedoms.

Practically, this isnt a viable argument for many reasons. I mean restricting calories sold a fast food joints, if that is what we are still talking about, seems unworkable.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #444 on: October 24, 2017, 09:19:19 AM »
Why the hell is there a need to buy and sell military rifles?  The Bushmaster Adam Lanza used could pierce armor-what is the purpose here? 

Civilians do not have access to armor-piercing ammunition. Just stop right there.  AR-style rifles fire .223 Remington which is similar, but not identical to the ammunition chambered for the M-16/M-4 which is 5.56mm in caliber.  The .223 was designed for the civilian market in the US before any military rifle was designed to use the 5.56mm.  If I were to take a 5.56mm military cartridge and stick it in a civilian rifle chambered for .223 it could blow up in my face from excessive pressure.  5.56mm comes in an armor-piercing variety, but it is not standard issue even to soldiers.  In 19 years in the Army I've never seen a single round of it.

There is no ban on armor piercing rifle ammo that I know of, although it's not often made/sold. Armor piercing pistol ammo is banned, which caused a bit of chaos when some folks tried to ban M855 rifle ammo because some people make AR pistols, especially considering it doesn't have a steel core which is what typically defines something as armor piercing.

Most civilian ARs are chambered in 5.56, which can also shoot .223. You're right if a rifle is chambered for .223 you shouldn't shoot 5.56 in it, but most ARs are 5.56, it's not some military exclusive round. Some older AR15s are chambered in .223, but it's pretty rare these days.

Rifle ammo in general is "armor piercing" at close range on typical armor. I don't think too many people walk around day to day in level IV body armor. Even then, a big/powerful enough round will beat it (and you'll already be falling down from the weight).  Most body armor is really made for pistols, not rifles. I think most police armor is level IIIA which is pistol rated.

When it comes down to it, something that can take down a hog is going to be able to beat most body armor, even if it isn't specifically designed to. In reality it's not an issue, as the vast majority of people who get shot aren't wearing body armor.

iris lily

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #445 on: October 24, 2017, 09:20:56 AM »
Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Not to derail this thread further, but iris lily, if those regulations could be directly attributed to saving hundreds of thousands of lives, would you be ok with it? Millions of lives?


Obviously "directly attributed" is the operative phrase here. But that is the basis of the argument. Assuming we can prove that we can make regulations that have such grand effects, how many lives is your freedom worth? Put a value on someone else's life. That is what we are asking.

What the actual regulations are that qualify as "directly attributed" do not matter at this point in the debate, because we need to know what an acceptable amount of freedom is ok to give up to save lives.

No.

No.

No.

My freedom is prcieless, as is yours. See? It works for both of us. And any risk is for both of us.

Well, now you're just being silly.  You trade freedom for safety all the time.

You aren't free to drive on the left side of the road, or to ignore traffic lights.  You aren't free to walk into your neighbour's house and take his milk.  You're not free to joke about having a bomb at an airport.  If you try to exercise these freedoms you're liable to end up in jail.

Freedom clearly isn't priceless.

Maybe not practical, but the idea is that the freedom we are born with ( inalienable rights) doesn't have a price tag. An effective government will protext that freedom.

Where the rubber  meets the road is your "protection" vs my definition of "protection."

Can you list exactly what your definition of inalienable rights is?

I won't be doing that, but thank you for the invitation.

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #446 on: October 24, 2017, 09:43:45 AM »
Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Not to derail this thread further, but iris lily, if those regulations could be directly attributed to saving hundreds of thousands of lives, would you be ok with it? Millions of lives?


Obviously "directly attributed" is the operative phrase here. But that is the basis of the argument. Assuming we can prove that we can make regulations that have such grand effects, how many lives is your freedom worth? Put a value on someone else's life. That is what we are asking.

What the actual regulations are that qualify as "directly attributed" do not matter at this point in the debate, because we need to know what an acceptable amount of freedom is ok to give up to save lives.

No.

No.

No.

My freedom is prcieless, as is yours. See? It works for both of us. And any risk is for both of us.

Well, now you're just being silly.  You trade freedom for safety all the time.

You aren't free to drive on the left side of the road, or to ignore traffic lights.  You aren't free to walk into your neighbour's house and take his milk.  You're not free to joke about having a bomb at an airport.  If you try to exercise these freedoms you're liable to end up in jail.

Freedom clearly isn't priceless.

Maybe not practical, but the idea is that the freedom we are born with ( inalienable rights) doesn't have a price tag. An effective government will protext that freedom.

Where the rubber  meets the road is your "protection" vs my definition of "protection."

I dont expect to add anything meaningful to the dialog of gun control, I was answering the question directed to me personally. No, I don't think that the example of highly controlled fast food for the theoretical salvage of millions of lives is worth the trade offs. That particular legislation is a big NO for me.
Remember, as the hypothetical question was posed these controls would definitively save lives, not theoretically.

Is your opinion on this based on an ideal world or are you making this determination based on current laws. I ask because as has been mentioned, if we're talking millions of lives being saved or even if those people just get healthier, that will have significant impacts on what everyone else pays for health insurance. So maybe in your ideal world we wouldn't have that interconnectedness but in the current world we do. Does that influence your opinion?

I can only respond to both the purely theoretical and the practical:

Theoretically, I dont think all actions that save lives are worth the resultantant loss of freedoms.

Practically, this isnt a viable argument for many reasons. I mean restricting calories sold a fast food joints, if that is what we are still talking about, seems unworkable.
OK, so this is why I asked that question. The original question asked about a purely hypothetical situation where a restriction on your dietary choices and a business's freedom to sell whatever they want would in fact save lives. The purpose of that question (I think) is not to get you to agree to any real world policy but rather to understand how you come to your conclusions about not restricting personal choice. You are not willing to answer that question, which is fair.

If you believe that our right to choose is more important than literally saving x number of lives that is a different stance than believing it is too complicated and impractical to enforce such laws. But once we know how someone comes to a conclusion we know whether it's worth discussing the practical reality or not.

In the hypothetical we could remove the actual scenario and use something more arbitrary to make this more clear. Do you think it would be reasonable to give up our right to use umbrellas if umbrellas were responsible for 1 thousand deaths per year? 1 million? 10 million?

Regarding examples of freedoms given so far, most of them have been "freedoms" that infringe upon someone else. I'd like to give some examples of laws meant to protect us from ourselves/manufacturers. Are you ok with bans on chemicals that make products dangerous for the consumer like lead paint, trans fats, asbestos, etc.? Are you ok with requiring someone to wear a seatbelt? How about mandates for manufacturers of vehicles to meet certain safety standards?

Just some things to think about, answer at your leisure.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2017, 09:45:19 AM by Dabnasty »

Travis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1795
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #447 on: October 24, 2017, 09:55:56 AM »
Why the hell is there a need to buy and sell military rifles?  The Bushmaster Adam Lanza used could pierce armor-what is the purpose here? 

Civilians do not have access to armor-piercing ammunition. Just stop right there.  AR-style rifles fire .223 Remington which is similar, but not identical to the ammunition chambered for the M-16/M-4 which is 5.56mm in caliber.  The .223 was designed for the civilian market in the US before any military rifle was designed to use the 5.56mm.  If I were to take a 5.56mm military cartridge and stick it in a civilian rifle chambered for .223 it could blow up in my face from excessive pressure.  5.56mm comes in an armor-piercing variety, but it is not standard issue even to soldiers.  In 19 years in the Army I've never seen a single round of it.

There is no ban on armor piercing rifle ammo that I know of, although it's not often made/sold. Armor piercing pistol ammo is banned, which caused a bit of chaos when some folks tried to ban M855 rifle ammo because some people make AR pistols, especially considering it doesn't have a steel core which is what typically defines something as armor piercing.

Most civilian ARs are chambered in 5.56, which can also shoot .223. You're right if a rifle is chambered for .223 you shouldn't shoot 5.56 in it, but most ARs are 5.56, it's not some military exclusive round. Some older AR15s are chambered in .223, but it's pretty rare these days.

Rifle ammo in general is "armor piercing" at close range on typical armor. I don't think too many people walk around day to day in level IV body armor. Even then, a big/powerful enough round will beat it (and you'll already be falling down from the weight).  Most body armor is really made for pistols, not rifles. I think most police armor is level IIIA which is pistol rated.

When it comes down to it, something that can take down a hog is going to be able to beat most body armor, even if it isn't specifically designed to. In reality it's not an issue, as the vast majority of people who get shot aren't wearing body armor.

You're right that 5.56x45 NATO is available on the civilian market, but that's not what Adam Lanza was shooting. YMMV on the "most ARs" are 5.56mm.  I've seen dozens of AR "style," rifles on the market chambered in everything from .22lr to 5.56mm to 9mm with the most common being .223, but an actual 5.56mm AR-15 has been rare in my experience, but I could be wrong there.  The term "armor piercing" is also rather subjective.  Are we talking body armor or vehicle?  It's rarely specified in these debates.  With a few exceptions, rifle-proof body armor is only worn by the military so damn near every rifle round is going to penetrate "armor."  It doesn't need to be some military-spec scary bullet to pull that off.
My Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/will-i-or-won't-i-a-home-run-or-a-base-hit/

Unlike some other tech companies or skilled-labor industries, we're always hiring.

www.goarmy.com

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 121
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #448 on: October 24, 2017, 11:11:14 AM »
Stuff
Stuff
Stuff
Stuff
Stuff
Remember, as the hypothetical question was posed these controls would definitively save lives, not theoretically.

Is your opinion on this based on an ideal world or are you making this determination based on current laws. I ask because as has been mentioned, if we're talking millions of lives being saved or even if those people just get healthier, that will have significant impacts on what everyone else pays for health insurance. So maybe in your ideal world we wouldn't have that interconnectedness but in the current world we do. Does that influence your opinion?

I can only respond to both the purely theoretical and the practical:

Theoretically, I dont think all actions that save lives are worth the resultantant loss of freedoms.

Practically, this isnt a viable argument for many reasons. I mean restricting calories sold a fast food joints, if that is what we are still talking about, seems unworkable.
OK, so this is why I asked that question. The original question asked about a purely hypothetical situation where a restriction on your dietary choices and a business's freedom to sell whatever they want would in fact save lives. The purpose of that question (I think) is not to get you to agree to any real world policy but rather to understand how you come to your conclusions about not restricting personal choice. You are not willing to answer that question, which is fair.

If you believe that our right to choose is more important than literally saving x number of lives that is a different stance than believing it is too complicated and impractical to enforce such laws. But once we know how someone comes to a conclusion we know whether it's worth discussing the practical reality or not.

In the hypothetical we could remove the actual scenario and use something more arbitrary to make this more clear. Do you think it would be reasonable to give up our right to use umbrellas if umbrellas were responsible for 1 thousand deaths per year? 1 million? 10 million?

Regarding examples of freedoms given so far, most of them have been "freedoms" that infringe upon someone else. I'd like to give some examples of laws meant to protect us from ourselves/manufacturers. Are you ok with bans on chemicals that make products dangerous for the consumer like lead paint, trans fats, asbestos, etc.? Are you ok with requiring someone to wear a seatbelt? How about mandates for manufacturers of vehicles to meet certain safety standards?

Just some things to think about, answer at your leisure.

Exactly, 1000%. Dabnasty hit the nail on the head here. Great explanation and questions.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #449 on: October 24, 2017, 11:31:22 AM »
You're right that 5.56x45 NATO is available on the civilian market, but that's not what Adam Lanza was shooting. YMMV on the "most ARs" are 5.56mm.  I've seen dozens of AR "style," rifles on the market chambered in everything from .22lr to 5.56mm to 9mm with the most common being .223, but an actual 5.56mm AR-15 has been rare in my experience, but I could be wrong there.  The term "armor piercing" is also rather subjective.  Are we talking body armor or vehicle?  It's rarely specified in these debates.  With a few exceptions, rifle-proof body armor is only worn by the military so damn near every rifle round is going to penetrate "armor."  It doesn't need to be some military-spec scary bullet to pull that off.

Agreed on all points except the 5.56 being rare. Especially in the last 5 years of very fierce competition, it's quite rare to see one that's exclusively .223, even at the bargain bin level. For reference, on the cheaperthandirt website there are 633 results for 5.56NATO semi auto rifles, and 21 results for .223Rem.

Anyway we're splitting hairs really, as the rounds aren't very different. As you said, most any rifle will pierce armor that isn't specifically designed against rifle rounds (which is not common).