Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/index.php)
-   Off the Court Lounge (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Are you team safety or team personal freedoms? (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=440727)

Kblaze8855 10-03-2017 07:54 AM

Are you team safety or team personal freedoms?
 
An argument we had here once led me to the belief that plenty of laws could be passed to limit gun tragedies. Mostly safety related....some with harsher penalties for felons found with guns...an expanded "No guns" list along the lines of a no fly list with a higher standard of proof. Life on a no guns list for anyone found to have their gun in the hand of a child under 10 who hurt someone with it. Universal background checks and safety courses. Greatly increased taxes on sales of guns and ammo which drive the price up and over time(decades) reduce access to low level criminals who cant afford to shop the emerging black market.

There are a dozen things you could do that would save lives. Eventually most anyone you speak to would accept that. But what I run into....is that we are supposedly a nation of freedom and individual freedom comes before the hypothetical greater good. For example...smoking. Greater good if nobody smoked? Sure. Who is pro cancer? But...you cant take peoples freedom to choose(apparently you CAN take their freedom to smoke other plants but thats another topic).

Could you legislate away a psycho getting his hands on a gun? No. Could you make them harder to get? Harder to own large numbers of? More expensive to deal in? Sure. You would save tens of thousands of people. If you think thats an exaggeration....look at the numbers. Imagine a 10% drop over your entire lifetime. There would be hundreds of thousands...millions of lives saved longterm. Drop a tragedy from 19 lives to 6. Keep a gang member in jail an extra 2 years for having a gun as a felon. You WOULD save lives.

Lets say you passed a law saying anyone caught with kids under 6 in a car without a car seat gets 90 days in jail per kid after a 6 month adjustment period during which the poor could get free seats from the DMV. What exactly would happen? 100% of us know...less kids would be killed in car accidents. Not an opinion. A fact.

Does that outweigh the somewhat draconian law?

The problem when it comes to guns is you cant take political credit for tragic situations prevented. But you can lose your seat when you push for these laws and some nut shoots up a state fair anyway. People wouldnt think long.

How many lives do you think the 1934 firearms act saved by limiting gun access to violent felons? We still lose too many people....but how do you account for lives not lost?

Where do you come down?

Lean towards over reaching laws that prevent many kids being shot in the face....even if not totally eliminating it?

Giving people as much freedom as possible even at the cost of innocent lives?

Is there really a third option?

We all just make peace with a certain level of violence we are prepared to accept so most of us arent inconvenienced. To take it back to cars....

Nascar style restraints in every car save thousands of lives. But it would be annoying so....you wouldnt pass that law.

When it comes to guns where is the line? Have we already reached it? We gonna just accept that while we could save lives....it would cost too much freedom?

The NRA is already fighting to give felons their gun rights. They would lose it at the idea of a no guns list for the criminally negligent or taxing guns like cigarettes to drive up the price and price out low level criminals.

They would go all "Its our right as Americans....." and maybe it is.

But where is the line?

And more importantly...in the real world...could a politician survive pushing for drastic life saving changes once a few more tragedies roll in? We all know that even people smart enough to know they would be reduced long term...would still use their existence to say gun control is a failure.

Knowing that....does all this talk even matter?

They say its not the time to talk about it after these things happen....but then you never get to it because they happen every 2-3 months now.

They just putting off the greater good out of political fear?

The people who really put in these changes eventually just have to accept that most are getting voted out for it. Especially anyone in a red state. It would cost too much personally to do the right thing...so how do we expect them to?

If we wont accept taking 2 minutes to put on much safer seatbelts to....live? How do we expect someone to risk their career to save abstract lives? Or to sit through a mandatory safety class when they are already safe...so some other idiot doesnt get his baby girl killed by his 6 year old?

Im generally one to lean towards societal safety...but the freedom champions arent entirely unreasonable.

Where do you fall?

tpols 10-03-2017 08:04 AM

Re: Are you team safety or team personal freedoms?
 
they dont want regulations....on anything. free market yo.

Kblaze8855 10-03-2017 08:09 AM

Re: Are you team safety or team personal freedoms?
 
To put it simply....

There is a baseline number of innocent people who are going to get shot in the face no matter what laws you pass. On that we all agree.

I think where we disagree is exactly where the point of diminishing returns is as far as trading the freedom of rational nonviolent gun owners to curb the destruction of the few face shooters.

Some believe every child saved is worth whatever it takes to save them and others have an easier time coming to grips with the fact that the world sucks and you can't save everybody by ****ing over people who aren't out here killing kids.

I feel there's a good discussion to be had on the matter but you will never hear the two sides meaningfully engage in public. Everyone falls back to their corners to vilify the opposition so nothing gets done.

I doubt we could reach an agreement with five people on either side of the debate even here so how can we expect Congress to do it when they have people to answer to?

Kblaze8855 10-03-2017 08:12 AM

Re: Are you team safety or team personal freedoms?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tpols
they dont want regulations....on anything. free market yo.


The NRA doesn't seem to but the average pro-gun person isn't going to tell you that even violent felons should have guns.

There is some room for flex there. It just takes a while for people to accept the new normal. Relatively speaking there aren't many people in favor of less regulation. Both sides have come to it accept what we currently have as the minimum. Even gun rights people are in favor of more safety classes and background checks. The problem is the slippery slope side doesn't want you to do anything at all.

UK2K 10-03-2017 08:41 AM

Re: Are you team safety or team personal freedoms?
 
More than half of 'gun deaths' each year are suicides.

So in any given year, you're looking at 8k - 12k deaths due to firearm violence each year. In a country of 330 million people.

That's 0.00003% of the country.

This most recent event spotlights gun ownership in America because of the amount of deaths in such a short period of time, but...

There were 57 people killed and 273 shot in just the city of Chicago over the last month. Its crazy to see '500 wounded' after an event like we saw in Vegas, but that's not all that unusual from your typical month in Chicago. It just happened in one night.

I don't think random civilians need to own full auto rifles, because they're just not practical. There's really no benefit to using them, on the battlefield, or otherwise. I don't think civilians should own silencers because, again, it's not practical.

But I do think every one (within reason) who desires should be able to own a rifle, shotgun, or pistol if they so choose.

Kblaze8855 10-03-2017 09:06 AM

Re: Are you team safety or team personal freedoms?
 
I am well aware of the numbers. You seem to fall on the kids are going to get shot in the face no matter what you do so let's not curb freedoms in an effort to hit the unreachable zero side of the argument. And from the real world practical standpoint it's not entirely unreasonable. But do you think 12,000 is somewhere near the limit that can be reached before encroaching on too many freedoms?

People have been giving me numbers suggesting it isn't that many people for more than 15 years on here and by now it's well over 100,000 people dead. It absolutely is millions of people over time and I'm asking how much personal annoyance is worth saving millions of lives.

It's easier to justify looking the other way when we keep the numbers confined to small periods of time I know....but it really is millions of people. Which isn't even accounting for the people who get shot and survive which gets us many millions more. One of them my childhood best friend who was shot in the side of the head in his car in Columbia years ago. He forgot how to walk and had his life torn apart. He's not on the gun deaths list but it's hard for me personally not to count him. he has mostly recovered but it was a long road.

Over the course of our lives we are talking more casualties than you would get out of destroying a midsized American city with a nuke. It is not to me an insignificant number of people we are talking about saving.

I'm not entirely deaf to the oppositions view that at some point you have to draw a line. I'm not trying to make out the opponents of the tougher laws to be monsters or anything. Which is why I pointed out on the seatbelt situation. I will not be in favor of mandatory NASCAR style seat belts and helmets even though it would save millions of lives.

But to me that is more a decision on your personal safety. These maniacs are getting guns and screwing up thousands of people's lives at once. If I fly through my windshield I'm ****ed. These people will go shoot up the Special Olympics and impact the lives of 10,000 people in five minutes.

hold this L 10-03-2017 09:15 AM

Re: Are you team safety or team personal freedoms?
 
Auto rifles and silencers should be banned fullstop. Owning a handgun or a rifle should go through a process that ok's you to use it, not go to Walmart and buy it. For me it should come with a psych evaluation. Add extremely tight laws on civilians selling to others (who can sell to some mentally ill person).

This is a better compromise for both parties where they can keep guns from the right, and there are stricter gun laws to appease the left. More than that, it makes sense since America is the only first world country where this happens on such a pathetic, large scale. Once that happens, we can use 5-10 years and see if it has a positive effect.

r15mohd 10-03-2017 09:22 AM

Re: Are you team safety or team personal freedoms?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hold this L
Auto rifles and silencers should be banned fullstop. Owning a handgun or a rifle should go through a process that ok's you to use it, not go to Walmart and buy it. For me it should come with a psych evaluation. Add extremely tight laws on civilians selling to others (who can sell to some mentally ill person).

This is a better compromise for both parties where they can keep guns from the right, and there are stricter gun laws to appease the left. More than that, it makes sense since America is the only first world country where this happens on such a pathetic, large scale. Once that happens, we can use 5-10 years and see if it has a positive effect.


this is my mindset however this initiative has been tried and failed - I know after SandyHook, the Obama admin pushed the vetting notion you mentioned about - and it died as it met congress and their ties to the NRA's influence. also note, earlier this year Trump also signed away a bill the revoked gun purchasing/ownership by the mentally ill :facepalm

the excuse continually brought up is that enacting this requirement to purchasing a gun infringes on their 2nd amendment...uhh, where? you get to own one if you are fit to do so :confusedshrug:

Orlando Magic 10-03-2017 09:26 AM

Re: Are you team safety or team personal freedoms?
 
I have been unaffiliated leaning towards libertarian for a long time.

That being said, I am starting to come to the belief that the truth lies somewhere in the middle and that regulations over certain things are actually good.

You can't force people to be good people and bad people are going to be bad no matter what... so why enact needless regulation when you're just essentially limiting the "good" people... that's the libertarian stance in me. However, as you so pointed out... with the seat belt scenario... the number of dead kids would definitely go down because obviously parents would be way more strict about making sure their kids have seat belts on out of self interest if nothing else. I don't know that your penalty is necessarily in alignment with what I would deem reasonable, but I don't think that was your point anyways... rather that the law and noteworthy punishment of some sort exist... but yes, in my opinion, this is a "good" regulation.

And therein lies another huge problem... people have differing world views as to what "good" or "bad" are... because outside of a few unspoken and known to the depths of your bones "goods" and "bads", they are based on your perspective. Good and bad may not actually exist in any capacity other than imaginary and as a social construct to further society, but that's another thread also.

Speaking in generalities, Democrats tend to lean towards regulating everything and Republicans tend to lean towards regulating nothing. Both world views are highly flawed. The truth is in the middle and the only thing that will provide the best results is trial & error combined with extensive documentation run through some sort of analysis program that can mathematically prove the "best" result for a combination of society and the individual, not either or. The problem with that is there are so many unquantifiable and unknown factors with any given issue that it's pretty much a pipe dream.

To keep this very brief and if you read nothing else I posted, I guess what I'm saying is this... it's a case by case basis, not a blanket alignment with one world view or the other, but if I absolutely had to pick a team it's team personal freedoms... because the other path requires a revolutionary change if you go down it too far and in too many instances puts unnecessary restrictions on people that don't need them.

Kblaze8855 10-03-2017 09:27 AM

Re: Are you team safety or team personal freedoms?
 
One would think most legitimate uses of a gun you would want it to be loud so someone would know to call the police. That said last Christmas I bought an AR 15 for a girl I was seeing and she is afraid to shoot it without a silencer. Well not a silencer a suppressor I believe. It isnt quiet it just isn't nearly as loud. If she had one of those movie style silencers I'm sure she would never take it off. There is a legitimate use for most everything gun related so long as you consider fun to be an excuse. And so many people have their guns and they are no threat to anyone and they are scared shitless that people like me want to come for them.....

I don't. I might buy another gun soon. I just don't think me being inconvenienced on the way to getting it or forcing me to be responsible with it or pay dearly is too unreasonable. If a gun I'm responsible for ends up in the hands of a six-year-old who shoots his friend not only should I be charged but when I get through the court system I should never be able to own a gun again.

You see stories of distraught parents and I can't even imagine being in that situation. Like the guy who's kid got a hold of it and killed himself? And then the guy shoots himself out of grief. People treat these things like toys.....

Do you know how much more careful some of these gun nuts would be if a single accident with their gun took their hunting license for life? If I can prove you handed a pistol to a three-year-old I don't see why you should ever be given another one. So many tragedies can be avoided by common sense but people won't show common sense without being forced.

Orlando Magic 10-03-2017 09:36 AM

Re: Are you team safety or team personal freedoms?
 
The overwhelming majority of fast food is unquestionably physically bad for you. There is no argument to be made otherwise... the data is there. The nutritional facts are there.

Should fast food be banned for everyone? Should people be restricted to a certain amount of visits each month or just completely banned?

What about feeding fast food to your kids who everyone would agree are too young to understand anything other than what you tell them? Are you setting them up for failure by feeding them poison and thus teaching them it's ok to consume at any time?

Should soda be eliminated and outlawed? Talk about a waste. Soda is quite literally one of the worst things around as it provides NOTHING of value to you other than emotional comfort and childish gratification. There is no argument for it to be made kept around from a health standpoint.

If all fast food restaurants and junk food were banned tomorrow how much would that impact our lives from a social standpoint, never mind the obvious health benefits for each individual? How much would it slow society down, which may not be a bad thing by the way though I'd say most would disagree especially in the USA...

Where do you draw the line? It's a never ending discussion and really it's a case by case basis.

rufuspaul 10-03-2017 09:37 AM

Re: Are you team safety or team personal freedoms?
 
Stricter regulation was put in place after Regan and Brady were shot. Those laws have been stripped of their power over time. When absolutely nothing was done after Sandy Hook I lost all hope in congress even enacting token legislation.

Patrick Chewing 10-03-2017 09:41 AM

Re: Are you team safety or team personal freedoms?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hold this L
Auto rifles and silencers should be banned fullstop. Owning a handgun or a rifle should go through a process that ok's you to use it, not go to Walmart and buy it. For me it should come with a psych evaluation. Add extremely tight laws on civilians selling to others (who can sell to some mentally ill person).

This is a better compromise for both parties where they can keep guns from the right, and there are stricter gun laws to appease the left. More than that, it makes sense since America is the only first world country where this happens on such a pathetic, large scale. Once that happens, we can use 5-10 years and see if it has a positive effect.



- Auto rifles are banned

- Every time you purchase a weapon whether it's at Walmart, Gun Show, or Gun Shop, you go through a background check that's conducted by the FBI.

Kblaze8855 10-03-2017 09:45 AM

Re: Are you team safety or team personal freedoms?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Orlando Magic
The overwhelming majority of fast food is unquestionably physically bad for you. There is no argument to be made otherwise... the data is there. The nutritional facts are there.

Should fast food be banned for everyone? Should people be restricted to a certain amount of visits each month or just completely banned?

What about feeding fast food to your kids who everyone would agree are too young to understand anything other than what you tell them? Are you setting them up for failure by feeding them poison and thus teaching them it's ok to consume at any time?

Should soda be eliminated and outlawed? Talk about a waste. Soda is quite literally one of the worst things around as it provides NOTHING of value to you other than emotional comfort and childish gratification. There is no argument for it to be made kept around from a health standpoint.

If all fast food restaurants and junk food were banned tomorrow how much would that impact our lives from a social standpoint, never mind the obvious health benefits for each individual? How much would it slow society down, which may not be a bad thing by the way though I'd say most would disagree especially in the USA...

Where do you draw the line? It's a never ending discussion and really it's a case by case basis.



Where we lose the equivalence is I'm not talking about banning guns and very few people if any are. And much like seatbelts what you eat is a personal decision that hurts you not others. It has public consequences when you get deeper into the healthcare side but guns are offensive. We're talking about The freedom to hurt other people not the freedom to hurt yourself.

The fast food argument is more analogous to drugs not the gun-control issue.

Kblaze8855 10-03-2017 09:48 AM

Re: Are you team safety or team personal freedoms?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Chewing
- Auto rifles are banned

- Every time you purchase a weapon whether it's at Walmart, Gun Show, or Gun Shop, you go through a background check that's conducted by the FBI.


I've watched people at gun shows make purchases without having an ID. I had a coworker who spent half his free time flipping guns on arms list and through cleverly worded craigslist ads. He certainly wasn't running background checks. The basic problem is the tremendous surplus of guns already in circulation. That's why I say you can't make an immediate impact. You just have to pass the common sense laws and settle in for the long haul.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy