sethiano
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2014
- Messages
- 190
lol, i read this title as "Uber bans gum in cars"....lol I was like wtf.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh Man ... you Americans and your guns ......
Which is a horrible event, but its luckily extremely uncommon (like getting hit with lightning after winning the lottery) and who ended up saving the day? A good law abiding citizen with a firearm. Again, think about how many good people there are compared to mass murders... we are talking millions upon millions to one. Mass murderers wield so much power because they usually go for soft targets where there are a lot of unarmed defenseless people.
lol, i read this title as "Uber bans gum in cars"....lol I was like wtf.
Which is a horrible event, but its luckily extremely uncommon (like getting hit with lightning after winning the lottery) and who ended up saving the day? A good law abiding citizen with a firearm. Again, think about how many good people there are compared to mass murders... we are talking millions upon millions to one. Mass murderers wield so much power because they usually go for soft targets where there are a lot of unarmed defenseless people.
Mass murders tend not to be too successful at the gun range or gun store or police station, since after shooting someone they'd have twenty guns pointed at them.
I think we are going on a tangent ... almost all of the constitutional protections apply to the USA government and not corporations ... Corporations or business should be allowed to do whatever they want and ban whatever they want, as long as they don't violate another law ... corporations control freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom to associate and many other things because they legally can (and it is not our place or the government's place to question those rules, most of the time) ... if it is good for business it should be legal since that is the basis of capitalism
All rich people are slimy tax evading assholes. All Republican's are Christian, anti-gay, racist white people. All gun owners are like Rambo and want to shoot someone.
Oh Man ... you Americans and your guns ......
No one is confused or going on tangents, we're talking about stupidity and facts... constitutional rights somehow applying to corporations were never brought up once.I think we are going on a tangent ... almost all of the constitutional protections apply to the USA government and not corporations ... Corporations or business should be allowed to do whatever they want and ban whatever they want, as long as they don't violate another law ... corporations control freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom to associate and many other things because they legally can (and it is not our place or the government's place to question those rules, most of the time) ... if it is good for business it should be legal since that is the basis of capitalism
*snip*
What you're assuming is that there will still be people who own firearms that can cause a disparity. If we ban all aspects production/sale/ownership/use and then send law enforcement into homes to search and seize, plus implement broad monitoring programs on the population, we can remove that disparity among the civil population. With current technology along with adequate monitoring, we can dramatically reduce the number of firearms and turn their metal into something useful like butterflies or additional roadside cameras to automatically measure speed and revoke drivers licenses. It won't totally solve the problem because there will always be people out there who will circumvent controls (which means drastic and harsh punishments for violations) but it will reduce availability.
1) Can't, constitution, and its in the constitution for a reason as one of the checks&balances in government by design.What you're assuming is that there will still be people who own firearms that can cause a disparity. If we ban all aspects production/sale/ownership/use and then send law enforcement into homes to search and seize, plus implement broad monitoring programs on the population, we can remove that disparity among the civil population. With current technology along with adequate monitoring, we can dramatically reduce the number of firearms and turn their metal into something useful like butterflies or additional roadside cameras to automatically measure speed and revoke drivers licenses. It won't totally solve the problem because there will always be people out there who will circumvent controls (which means drastic and harsh punishments for violations) but it will reduce availability.
No one is confused or going on tangents, we're talking about stupidity and facts... constitutional rights somehow applying to corporations were never brought up once.
People have a moral obligation IMO to speak up with big corporations make unfair rules that sacrifice the safety of their employees. If I were asked to pick up random strangers all day every day all hours of the night for years, you're damn straight I would want to be able to protect myself. Its not a constitutional right, but it is a basic human right that Uber should hopefully get public pressure to reverse. New policies can be unmade as fast as they were made.
What you're assuming is that there will still be people who own firearms that can cause a disparity. If we ban all aspects production/sale/ownership/use and then send law enforcement into homes to search and seize, plus implement broad monitoring programs on the population, we can remove that disparity among the civil population. With current technology along with adequate monitoring, we can dramatically reduce the number of firearms and turn their metal into something useful like butterflies or additional roadside cameras to automatically measure speed and revoke drivers licenses. It won't totally solve the problem because there will always be people out there who will circumvent controls (which means drastic and harsh punishments for violations) but it will reduce availability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
13th worst in the world, between Mexico and Argentina. All the countries with the lowest numbers have the strongest gun control laws. I'm not saying that it's the only thing going on, but the correlation is pretty obvious. The only way to know for sure would be to copy Hong Kong's gun laws for a few years to see if it makes a difference.
We all know that's never going to happen and I'm not saying I think it's a good idea, but the USA is the only first-world country with very lax gun control and it's the only first-world country near the top of that gun crimes per capita list.
You think those trusted officials are going to go into gangland and take their guns too? How about drug groups that can import their guns via illegal methods?
Seriously, it's the same BS thinking that you can take from those who should so that those who shouldn't, can't.
I don't want to live in your world where the government controls your every move just to prevent you from hurting yourself or others.
You can just up the punishments and have a significant effect rather than turn the US into the EU.
If Uber does not own the cars how can they prohibit one from carrying their own legal property in another piece of their own property?
Why not compare the total homicide rate? Switzerland has a lower murder rate than Sweden despite having lax firearm laws (much less restrictions on firearm type than the US) and similar firearm ownership rates as the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Only .6 per 100K compared to Sweden's .7. Or Australia's 1.1, which has some of the toughest firearm laws for a western country.
In Canada you can walk into a gas station and buy a semi automatic rifle and walk out the same day, yet they only score 1.6. You do need a license, but all you need to do is pass a written test if I recall.
On the other hand Brazil has 25.2; a country in which firearm ownership is essentially outlawed for the average person. Venezuela is at 53.7. Again, extremely strict laws.
Lots of factors matter a whole lot more than firearm ownership rates.
Doesn't Switzerland also have mandatory military service (like a lot of countries) ... I think every country that requires their citizens to serve in the military is going to have better performance on gun violence ... the argument could be (especially given the military demands the USA has) that we require all 18-20 year old men and women who aren't enrolled in college to serve (if they are enrolled in college they would complete their enrollment after they graduate)
Doesn't Switzerland also have mandatory military service (like a lot of countries) ... I think every country that requires their citizens to serve in the military is going to have better performance on gun violence ... the argument could be (especially given the military demands the USA has) that we require all 18-20 year old men and women who aren't enrolled in college to serve (if they are enrolled in college they would complete their enrollment after they graduate)
Its really about criminals.Lots of factors matter a whole lot more than firearm ownership rates.
Doesn't Switzerland also have mandatory military service (like a lot of countries) ... I think every country that requires their citizens to serve in the military is going to have better performance on gun violence ... the argument could be (especially given the military demands the USA has) that we require all 18-20 year old men and women who aren't enrolled in college to serve (if they are enrolled in college they would complete their enrollment after they graduate)
Doesn't Switzerland also have mandatory military service (like a lot of countries) ... I think every country that requires their citizens to serve in the military is going to have better performance on gun violence ... the argument could be (especially given the military demands the USA has) that we require all 18-20 year old men and women who aren't enrolled in college to serve (if they are enrolled in college they would complete their enrollment after they graduate)
What you're assuming is that there will still be people who own firearms that can cause a disparity. If we ban all aspects production/sale/ownership/use and then send law enforcement into homes to search and seize, plus implement broad monitoring programs on the population, we can remove that disparity among the civil population. With current technology along with adequate monitoring, we can dramatically reduce the number of firearms and turn their metal into something useful like butterflies or additional roadside cameras to automatically measure speed and revoke drivers licenses. It won't totally solve the problem because there will always be people out there who will circumvent controls (which means drastic and harsh punishments for violations) but it will reduce availability.
Also forgot to add that people seem to assume a firearm is the only way to commit mass murder when talking about lone killers. Aside from the outlier of the Port Aurthur massacre, mass killings in Australia seem to have similar death rates after strict gun laws passed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders
Fires have killed up to 15, and up to 8 with a knife. The average mass killing with a firearm in that country seems to be around 5.
Doesn't seem like the strict gun laws have changed much, aside from what weapons are used.
You're advocating totalitarianism.
It's a guarantee the person is not a convicted felon, has no history of domestic abuse, and is not a drug addict.
I have no problems supporting that kinda government. In fact, it's just the kind of world I'd like to live in where people are all monitored pretty closely and if something goes wrong, the right intervention is automatically sent (medical support, police, fire, whatever else). That only happens if citizens are watched closely so that deviant thinkers can be weeded out and cordoned off someplace where they can't hurt anyone or themselves.
There is something mentally wrong with you, I seriously hope you don't own any firearms.
There is something mentally wrong with you, I seriously hope you don't own any firearms.
I have no problems supporting that kinda government. In fact, it's just the kind of world I'd like to live in where people are all monitored pretty closely and if something goes wrong, the right intervention is automatically sent (medical support, police, fire, whatever else). That only happens if citizens are watched closely so that deviant thinkers can be weeded out and cordoned off someplace where they can't hurt anyone or themselves.
Do you frequent the front page news forum often? Check the post history for CreepyUncleGoogle. He trolls like this hard all the time.
I have to think you are being sarcastic. No right minded/critical thinking person would subscribe to such a notion.
Using this graph why do you feel the need to arm yourself is so few deaths are a result of mass shootings or murders in general? You are protecting yourself against the .0001%?
As far as who gets guns and who doesnt, if criminals can so easily obtain a firearm then how come all crimes arent committed with firearms? I mean what guy would just to break into a house armed with a knife and crowbar instead of the easily available 9mm he supposedly can just pick up from the local crack dealer on the block?
Gun availability isnt the problem, it's people being consistently armed. Having your CWP doesnt do you much good unless you actually use it. And if you think this country is ready for 100% of law abiding citizens to walk around armed you're out of your mind. This aint the wild west anymore. Today's society simply isnt mature enough to be trusted with the power to mark people for death. When you have people frothing at the mouth against political opponents, people who genuinely hate others based upon nothing more than who they voted for then you have proven you arent ready yet for that level of responsibility.
Oh Man ... you Americans and your guns ......