# On the management of risk in a society...



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

In recent threads, we have been discussing the management of risk in society.  I've noticed that some people completely support some kinds of risks that people take and other people are totally against those risks.  When we measure actual damage based on the risk and we calculate the danger, we come up with various descriptions of risk.  Then, it is proposed, that we should make a law as a society in order to manage this risk.  

This is a very interesting proposition.  Whether we are talking about seatbelts, helmets, guns, drugs, or terrorism, we are proposing that we can force our view of risk on others.  Do you agree with this proposition?  If so, which risks do you think need to be managed in this fashion?  If not, how do you think society should manage risk?


----------



## jezr74 (Apr 14, 2013)

Do you mean on a clean law slate, to level the field for this topic?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

jezr74 said:


> Do you mean on a clean law slate, to level the field for this topic?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD



I'm not sure what you mean?


----------



## Drasken (Apr 14, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> In recent threads, we have been discussing the management of risk in society.  I've noticed that some people completely support some kinds of risks that people take and other people are totally against those risks.  When we measure actual damage based on the risk and we calculate the danger, we come up with various descriptions of risk.  Then, it is proposed, that we should make a law as a society in order to manage this risk.
> 
> This is a very interesting proposition.  Whether we are talking about seatbelts, helmets, guns, drugs, or terrorism, we are proposing that we can force our view of risk on others.  Do you agree with this proposition?  If so, which risks do you think need to be managed in this fashion?  If not, how do you think society should manage risk?



My ideas are very controversial. I believe that if you aren't harming anyone but yourself, you should not be forced to do anything. For example, seatbelts. If I choose to not wear a seatbelt, it is my own decision. I have to live with, or not live with as the case may be, the consequences of that decision. I have always worn a seatbelt because it was an intelligent decision made by myself. It was also pushed upon me as a child by my parents who taught me WHY it was important.
But if someone refuses to wear a seatbelt, how much danger is anyone but that person in? When you are an adult and can make your own decisions? Have at it. Your stupidity ( as long as you're harming nobody else ) is your problem.

If I own a gun, or knife, or sword, or anything. And I hurt myself out of stupidity... Well if I live, hopefully I learned something from it. If I hurt someone else and it was unjustified? Well I just gave up my right to own a weapon and should deal with a harsh penalty.

My belief is that your rights should not be limited or taken for any reason, other than harming or showing provable intent and attempt to harm or infringe upon the rights of others.
And I refuse to accept that my rights, or your rights, or anyone's rights for that matter, must be limited to protect the stupidity of others from causing themselves harm. You can attempt to slow them down, but eventually they will get hurt. Or worse. No matter what regulations are put in place.
Public awareness campaigns? Great. Taking away or limiting rights? No.


----------



## K-man (Apr 14, 2013)

Most of  the problem is the legal system. The way it works in Australia and the US nothing is ever my fault!  I go skydiving, I twist my ankle walking to the plane, sue the airport. I go up to Queensland and jump in a river. A croc bites me. Not my fault. There wasn't a sign, sue the council.  I go into the supermarket, see water on the floor, keep walking and slip and bruise my ****. No problem, sue the supermarket. No one is prepared to be responsible for their own actions.

New Zealand has it right. Something goes wrong .. my fault. I chose to do what I chose to do. It doesn't exclude negligence but it does prevent claims for accidental injury.

If I choose to practise a martial art and somebody smacks me in the mouth ... my fault. I should have moved out of the way. 

When, as a society, we are prepared to take responsibility for our own actions, we will start to manage our own risks and society will benefit.   :asian:


----------



## seasoned (Apr 14, 2013)

Mentioned above, seat belts. I don't mind paying for MY stupidity. But, what about the decision to not wear one as you sail through the windshield without Ins to cover your butt, who pays for that persons stupidity?


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2013)

The problem with things like seat belts are that you won't necessarily off yourself.  When you don't kill yourself through your stupidity, you often become a very expensive liability for the tax payers.

That said, my personal opinion is that we should as a community/country be more involved in how people raise their kids and less involved in how they manage themselves.  If you don't want to wear a seatbelt?  Fine.  Take drugs, marry your gay partner, do freaky things that are currently illegal in some states.  Do what you want, provided it doesn't harm others.  For example, wanna take meth?  Fine.  Wanna make meth in your house?  No way.  

However, IMO, you SHOULD be made to buckle your kids up, etc.  

I think there is an appropriate role for government.  Right now, we have so many laws that are unnecessary.  If we got rid of these laws, making fewer people criminals and sending them through the jail system, our courts and our jails would cost us less.  That money is better spent on a single payer system, where we can treat meth addiction as a medical issue rather than as a criminal issue.  Treat stupidity as a medical condition, too, when you sail through the windshield.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

Steve said:


> The problem with things like seat belts are that you won't necessarily off yourself.  When you don't kill yourself through your stupidity, you often become a very expensive liability for the tax payers.
> 
> That said, my personal opinion is that we should as a community/country be more involved in how people raise their kids and less involved in how they manage themselves.  If you don't want to wear a seatbelt?  Fine.  Take drugs, marry your gay partner, do freaky things that are currently illegal in some states.  Do what you want, provided it doesn't harm others.  For example, wanna take meth?  Fine.  Wanna make meth in your house?  No way.
> 
> ...



Why should we pay to treat a drug addiction if you choose to take the drugs?  Shouldn't that be your responsibility to pay and seek treatment yourself.  After all if were going to an anything goes as long as it doesn't effect anyone else then my paying for your treatment is effecting me.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2013)

Seatbelts...anyone ever consider that being belted in keeps you in better control of a heavy piece of moving machinery if it makes a sudden movement? I have had to make sudden turns to avoid something that would have tossed me into the passenger seat if I wasn't belted in.

That's for the motoring publics safety as much as your own.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Drasken said:


> If I own a gun, or knife, or sword, or anything. And I hurt myself out of stupidity... Well if I live, hopefully I learned something from it. If I hurt someone else and it was unjustified? Well I just gave up my right to own a weapon and should deal with a harsh penalty.



Uh...no. You don't "just" give up your rights to a weapon. You've also hurt or killed somebody. That's really the big point here. It hurts _other _people.




> And I refuse to accept that my rights, or your rights, or anyone's rights for that matter, must be limited to protect the stupidity of others from causing themselves harm.



We have food safety regulations and inspections to try to prevent the stupidity of a cook from causing food-borne illness in customers. There are legitimate public health issues out there. People causing themselves harm is unfortunate but I agree that people have a considerable right to be stupid. It's their lives. I want to be protected from the stupidity of others harming me, though, to the extent feasible. That too is a balance, but I really don't want my neighbor storing chemical weapons in his garage. His stupidity could take out a whole neighborhood.

You're choosing to live in a society if you live here. Societies have rules to better function. Don't like the very principle of govt. of, by, and for the people? Somalia welcomes you!


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Why should we pay to treat a drug addiction if you choose to take the drugs?  Shouldn't that be your responsibility to pay and seek treatment yourself.



If it's an _addiction_, isn't that a medical condition?


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> If it's an _addiction_, isn't that a medical condition?



Can't be addicted if you never try it.  You know drugs are bad and can be addictive so that's on you not my problem


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Why should we pay to treat a drug addiction if you choose to take the drugs?  Shouldn't that be your responsibility to pay and seek treatment yourself.  After all if were going to an anything goes as long as it doesn't effect anyone else then my paying for your treatment is effecting me.


We pay for it anyway.  It's not a choice.  We just pay more because we treat the addiction AND we pay for the entire criminal side, too.  Capture, charge, prosecute and jail.  In addition to treating the medical condition we pay for their food, clothing and shelter for as long as they are in the court system.


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Can't be addicted if you never try it.  You know drugs are bad and can be addictive so that's on you not my problem


Ballen, come on.  It's already illegal...  has been for a long, long time.  How's that working for us?


----------



## Drasken (Apr 14, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Seatbelts...anyone ever consider that being belted in keeps you in better control of a heavy piece of moving machinery if it makes a sudden movement? I have had to make sudden turns to avoid something that would have tossed me into the passenger seat if I wasn't belted in.
> 
> That's for the motoring publics safety as much as your own.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



You make a good point. But it was just one example, and your point mostly applies to the driver.another one is that here in my area, helmets are encouraged but not required when riding a motorcycle. I would personally wear one, seen way too many accidents. But I don't believe you should be forced. There IS some merit to many regulations and laws. And I can readily admit to that. But I do also think that as a country we are overregulated. At very least, where the constitution is concerned.

Now I've seen people say that if someone wants to do drugs, fine whatever. Well I'm actually up in the air on this one. I think doing drugs is your own business. I don't think taxpayers should have to help with your addiction. And my Father was on meth when he tried to kill my family and me. Now, I can't really say it was the drug, but I'm sure it didn't help. I've seen drugs rip apart families. Then again, more logically I suppose he payed for it by sitting his butt in jail. So I'm not sure where I stand on this. I lean more to freedom to do whatever I suppose, but being forced to take responsibility for your own actions. I mean I DO think the war on drugs is failing. And causing cartels to have a thriving business, just like prohibition did with the mob.
Either way that is starting to get slightly off topic. Forgive me, I just woke up and haven't had coffee yet....


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2013)

Steve said:


> Capture, charge, prosecute and jail.



Jail?

What state do you live in? Users never go to jail here...diversion programs, drug court, probation. Jail?

Hardly ever.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

Steve said:


> We pay for it anyway.  It's not a choice.  We just pay more because we treat the addiction AND we pay for the entire criminal side, too.  Capture, charge, prosecute and jail.  In addition to treating the medical conditi we pay for their food, clothing and shelter for as long as they are in the court system.



I thought we were talking in a hypothetical world where if it doesn't effect others it should be legal.  You said make it all legal and pay for a single payer system.  I was saying once I have to pay for your decisions it now effects me.  If we truly want a society where anything goes al long as it doesnt bothes or effect others then make it all legal and offer zero public funded treatment let people OD and die in the streets


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Jail?
> 
> What state do you live in? Users never go to jail here...diversion programs, drug court, probation. Jail?
> 
> Hardly ever.


Next will come the "I heard of first time marijuana users getting years in jail on a first arrest". Nobody can ever produce the case numbers or names to verify but anytime legal pot argument comes up that gets thrown out there.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You know drugs are bad and can be addictive so that's on you not my problem



I know people can be allergic to peanuts. If I choose to try them and have a severe allergic reaction requiring medical intervention, is that on me too?


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I know people can be allergic to peanuts. If I choose to try them and have a severe allergic reaction requiring medical intervention, is that on me too?



Drugs and peanuts are a little different.  But OK we will give you one free round in rehab see how well that works for you.   I know ZERO people that have gone to rehab and stayed clean the first try.  I know they are probably out there but its not the type of clients I deal with generally.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Drasken said:


> I think doing drugs is your own business.



I certainly want to agree with this, and w.r.t. marijuana I certainly do. But...



> And my Father was on meth when he tried to kill my family and me.[...]I suppose he payed for it by sitting his butt in jail.



That'd be small comfort if he had succeeded, I wager. As with guns, when we see that it continually affects others--like the fact that meth. drives the majority of burglaries where I live--we need to take a broader view of the problem. It's part of living by govt. rather than anarchy--it's a benefit.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

But if you know your allergic to peanuts and still eat them then yeah your stupid time to start cleaning the gene pool


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2013)

Comparing food to the recreational use of drugs...

Uhhhh....right.


----------



## Drasken (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Uh...no. You don't "just" give up your rights to a weapon. You've also hurt or killed somebody. That's really the big point here. It hurts _other _people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, since you talk about guns specifically once again, and rules to protect people. The 2nd amendment is there to protect us..  From each other in the case of crime. From foreign threats in the case of an invasion. And from our on government, should checks and balances fail and the government becomes tyrannical.

Saying that, I believe a foreign invasion requiring armed militia response or the need for citizen uprising to be a very improbable scenario. But not impossible. Nothing is impossible. Our forefathers were quoted in books written by them, in their diaries, etc. saying just thato
So in essence the current proposed legislations are trying to restrict a law giving us the right of protection not only from criminals and foreign powers, but also from THEM. All for a, while very sad, statistically insignifigant number of tragedies and people dead.

I understand the emotional reaction, I really do. But emotion rarely is beneficial to the use of logic.

That said, let's not derail this thread.

Rules to protect others are just that. You are cooking food for someone else? Rules are good. But some of our regulations would be like the government requiring you to follow those rules when preparing your own food in your own home. It's a good idea, but if you want  food poisoning or something do whatever you want. That's all on you.

And yes if I hurt or kill someone else I have not only given up my rights. But what do you suggest? Arresting people and charging them with crimes they haven't even attempted? We need proof, what if they haven't hinted to it or there IS no proof?
"We need to regulate guns" Ok, so guns are harder to get. The people wanting to hurt others will just use something else. We will see a rise in stabbings for instance. If you have knowledge of anatomy and knives, you should know a knife attack can be pretty serious. Close up it is just as deadly as a gun.
So we have to regulate that. But people wanting to harm others will just find a NEW way to do it.

My point is, harming someone is already against the law. People that do it either expect jail time or don't feel responsible for their own actions. Overregulation does nothing but make matters worse. 
Most crime happens at night. If the government issued a manditory curfew to cut down on crime, would you support it?


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Comparing food to the recreational use of drugs...



The topic was actually medical care for people who engage in behaviors with known risks.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Drasken said:


> All for a, while very sad, statistically insignifigant number of tragedies and people dead.



No, 30K per year is not statistically insignificant. In some states gun deaths now outnumber motor vehicle (not just drunk driving) deaths (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/state-map-gun-suicides-traffic-deaths). Both are around 10-11 per 100K population (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm). 



> Arresting people and charging them with crimes they haven't even attempted?



I don't know where this paranoia is coming from, but no one is suggesting anything remotely like that.



> "We need to regulate guns" Ok, so guns are harder to get. The people wanting to hurt others will just use something else. We will see a rise in stabbings for instance.



A rise, yes. To the same levels, no--and knife attacks are much less likely to be fatal. Mass knife attacks cause many fewer fatalities. Guns are easy to use and give you the advantage of range. You won't see the same number of deaths. 



> Most crime happens at night. If the government issued a manditory curfew to cut down on crime, would you support it?



Most crime happens during the day because much crime is shoplifting, jaywalking, embezzlement, speeding, etc. But curfews happen--esp. juvenile curfews. No, it's not the case that I would support any possible effort to reduce crime. For example, I don't favor banning guns, either.


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Jail?
> 
> What state do you live in? Users never go to jail here...diversion programs, drug court, probation. Jail?
> 
> Hardly ever.


We have all sorts of people in jail for drug related crimes.  One of the issues that's arising now is what to do about all of the people who are currently in our State prison system for marijuana possession now that it has been legalized.  But, as you say, jail is only part of it.  Probation, diversion programs...  those aren't free.  Right?


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I thought we were talking in a hypothetical world where if it doesn't effect others it should be legal.  You said make it all legal and pay for a single payer system.  I was saying once I have to pay for your decisions it now effects me.  If we truly want a society where anything goes al long as it doesnt bothes or effect others then make it all legal and offer zero public funded treatment let people OD and die in the streets


Weren't you at one point working street level narcotics?  I would say that affected you, but we might not define the term in the same way.  If one of us is talking about a hypothetical world, it's you not me.  My point remains that we pay for it all and then some already.  We pay both the medical bills AND unnecessary criminal bills.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> No, 30K per year is not statistically insignificant. In some states gun deaths now outnumber motor vehicle (not just drunk driving) deaths (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/state-map-gun-suicides-traffic-deaths). Both are around 10-11 per 100K population (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm).



There are about a dozen places in America where violence is a huge problem.  If you remove these cities from the statistics, the overall amount of deaths in our population from violent crime is about the same as Denmark.  This is a problem in these cities because of the general breakdown of family, because of the drug war, and the lack of opportunity in those areas.  

It's really sad that most of America is really safe, but we allow these places to continue to crumble and get worse.  Detroit has a murder rate greater than your average 3rd world central American country.  Get out of Detroit and go up to the UP and you can leave your doors unlocked at night if you wish.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> There are about a dozen places in America where violence is a huge problem.  If you remove these cities from the statistics, the overall amount of deaths in our population from violent crime is about the same as Denmark.  This is a problem in these cities because of the general breakdown of family, because of the drug war, and the lack of opportunity in those areas.
> 
> It's really sad that most of America is really safe, but we allow these places to continue to crumble and get worse.  Detroit has a murder rate greater than your average 3rd world central American country.  Get out of Detroit and go up to the UP and you can leave your doors unlocked at night if you wish.




Suicide is also the bulk of most of these statistics...so if we are going down this "do what you want to yourself" road should that even matter?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

But this thread really isn't about one type of risk over another.  It's about the whole idea of managing risk in society in general.  Right now, based on lots of irrational politics, we have things that are totally legal, but dangerous as hell and things that are illegal, but have never actually killed anyone.  IMO, I think this reflects the ultimate result of prohibiting dangerous activities with laws and trying to manage other people's risk.  Could we find other ways of managing risk in our society rather than making a law and prohibiting it?  Could we preserve people's freedom and find a way to hold people accountable for their actions?  

Can a responsible person smoke a joint, drink raw milk, own a machine gun, marry three women, and grow hemp without having to fear that some guys in costumes will throw them into cages?  It seems like it's really unfair to force your view of what is risky on another person.  America is a big place.  We could easily have smaller communities where people could join them based on the agreements made beforehand.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

Steve said:


> Weren't you at one point working street level narcotics?  I would say that affected you, but we might not define the term in the same way.  If one of us is talking about a hypothetical world, it's you not me.  My point remains that we pay for it all and then some already.  We pay both the medical bills AND unnecessary criminal bills.


So what's the alternative make it all legal and still pay?  At least now we can require people to seek treatment thru courts.  It doesn't work the first or second or third time but I have had people eventually get tired of being in the system and stay clean and come back later and thank me.  Making it legal there is nothing we can do but watch people die in the streets and say oh well he was only hurting himself.  (Which I personally have no problem with I have little to no sympathy for drug users all the problems they have they brought it on themselves). The legalize stuff bandwagon sounds great in theory but won't work in reality.  People aren't ready for the aftermath.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The legalize stuff bandwagon sounds great in theory but won't work in reality.  People aren't ready for the aftermath.



People make the same argument against guns all of the time.  What strikes me as so ironic is that some posters would argue tooth and nail for my right to own an assault rifle, but then turn around and say my butt needs to go to jail for growing marijuana on my porch for sale.  Owning an assault rifle is statistically more dangerous than smoking a joint.  What's the deal with this apparent hypocrisy?


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> People make the same argument against guns all of the time.  What strikes me as so ironic is that some posters would argue tooth and nail for my right to own an assault rifle, but then turn around and say my butt needs to go to jail for growing marijuana on my porch for sale.  Owning an assault rifle is statistically more dangerous than smoking a joint.  What's the deal with this apparent hypocrisy?



For starter's you have no constitutional right to smoke a joint.  In fact drugs are not mentioned at all so its a choice left up to the states to decide.  I got no problem if Washington or Texas makes pot or crack or meth legal but be ready for the fall out.  Its not going to be all rainbows and unicorns that people think


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Suicide is also the bulk of most of these statistics...so if we are going down this "do what you want to yourself" road should that even matter?



Suicides make up around 18k with homicides being the bulk of the remaining 12k (plus some accidental deaths). The point with suicide is that if it's the result of an immediate reaction to a traumatic event or mental illness then the person may not want to try again after the urge passes. It's not the same as someone with cancer deciding the time has come.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The legalize stuff bandwagon sounds great in theory but won't work in reality.  People aren't ready for the aftermath.



We have to restrict people's rights and freedom for their own good and the good of others, you're saying?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2013)

Hmmm..this may ramble a bit so bear with me I'm just free flow thinking here. 

This debate always seems to circle around the "they are not hurting anyone" point. It's always framed as the harmless joint smoker. The mellow hippy growing weed in his basement, someone just using heroin as a hobby...whats the harm to anyone else but them thing. 

I'm a vice cop so I work with this sort of thing and these sort of people day to day. Lately I have been working up some info on prostitutes working my area. I have the ability to mine some data via the internet and LE sources to identity some of these women and look through various police contacts hey have had. To a person almost every one of them have pretty sad lives filled with drug abuse, assaults on their persons, driving under the influence of drugs, johns starling their cars, wrecking their vehicles while under the influence of narcotics, children being taken from them by protective services, suicide attempts, getting swept up in homicide cases where their "boyfriends" were killers, winding up dead themselves in garbage totes..and on and on. Drugs, prostitution...they don't attract a very savory crowd. Would you like to raise a family next door to a working girl doing incalls all day long? You want that sort of drama intruding on your life? I won't even bother listing the drama the run of the mill hype brigs with them.

Is this a chicken egg argument? Do "losers in life" get drawn to dope or does dope create them? I don't know but the need to get the dope is the common thread through a LOT of these hard luck stories. And I'm not talking about "civil disobedience" law breaking (a la speak easies during prohibition or bathtub booze)..I'm talking about burglaries, robberies and theft simply to buy an envelope of powder. 

A large chunk of my job is fielding complaints of "drug activity going on at my neighbors house"...most of which isn't really about the drugs as much as it is about the types of people who are drug users contaminating the neighborhood with their ********. These people are not going to suddenly turn into the Cleavers simply by legalizing cocaine/heroin/etc. 

Some people say "make drugs legal" and all that other crap goes away. I call ******** on that. When you are physically addicted on something you have to pay for you will need money to feed the master of puppets legal or not. As it is heroin per-day costs is getting pretty close to cigarette costs. Thinking that gvt legal dope is going to be that much cheaper than street dope after all the sin tax is added is a pipe dream. Except you don't typically see people robbing or stealing to buy a pack of smokes.

Of course weed and heroin are not equal in same way that cigarettes and heroin are not the same. I've been on record here before saying that legalization of personal use weed wouldn't drive me crazy even though I don't agree with the idea.

To wrap up this disjointed list...in the end the people in my Town obviously don't want drug users/dealers/prostitutes in their neighborhoods based on the calls, complaints at public meetings and letters I receive and I do what I can to plug the dike for them.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> We have to restrict people's rights and freedom for their own good and the good of others, you're saying?



Where is it written you have a right to smoke crack I missed that amendment.  So who's rights am I restricting?


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> For starter's you have no constitutional right to smoke a joint.  In fact drugs are not mentioned at all so its a choice left up to the states to decide.



That doesn't follow at all. Things not enumerated explicitly by name can fall under other headings like the equal protection clause, say. For example, it doesn't explicitly mention education but was the basis for Brown vs. Board of Ed.


----------



## Steve (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So what's the alternative make it all legal and still pay?  At least now we can require people to seek treatment thru courts.  It doesn't work the first or second or third time but I have had people eventually get tired of being in the system and stay clean and come back later and thank me.  Making it legal there is nothing we can do but watch people die in the streets and say oh well he was only hurting himself.  (Which I personally have no problem with I have little to no sympathy for drug users all the problems they have they brought it on themselves). *The legalize stuff bandwagon sounds great in theory but won't work in reality.  People aren't ready for the aftermath.*


Historically, whenever we legalize something, it actually does help.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

This was a well-said and respectfully stated post and I appreciate hearing your experience on it. I'm in agreement, except that I'm more open-minded than you, I think, on marijuana. I don't mean to mock what you say at all but please understand that as I read it I couldn't help but see the analogy to my position on the main subject at hand (changed items in *bold*):



> This debate always seems to circle around the "they are not hurting anyone" point. It's always framed as the harmless *gun owner*. The mellow *NRA member storing guns* in his basement, someone just using *firearms *as a hobby...whats the harm to anyone else but them thing.





> A large chunk of my job is fielding complaints of "*gun *activity going on at my neighbors house"...most of which isn't really about the *guns *as much as it is about the types of people who are *gun enthusiasts* contaminating the neighborhood with their ********.





> Of course *handguns *and *assault rifles* are not equal in same way that cigarettes and heroin are not the same. I've been on record here before saying that legalization of personal use *handguns *wouldn't drive me crazy





> in the end the people in my Town obviously don't want *open-carrying gun nuts with assault rifles* in their neighborhoods based on the calls, complaints at public meetings and letters I receive


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Where is it written you have a right to smoke crack I missed that amendment.  So who's rights am I restricting?



It doesn't say women can hold political office, only men, but most people figure that comes under the 14th Amendment, right? You're missing a major point here.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> That doesn't follow at all. Things not enumerated explicitly by name can fall under other headings like the equal protection clause, say. For example, it doesn't explicitly mention education but was the basis for Brown vs. Board of Ed.



Yes that's just another power grab by the feds that should bot have been the constitution is clear when written that if its not listed its left up to the states to decide.  The feds decided to take that power away.  Your OK with it I'm not.  Either way what clause covers drugs then?


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> It doesn't say women can hold political office, only men, but most people figure that comes under the 14th Amendment, right? You're missing a major point here.



It also says I have the absolute right to bear arms any arms I can afford even the scary ones that hold more then 7 rounds.  So I guess you missed a major point as well.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> This was a well-said and respectfully stated post and I appreciate hearing your experience on it. I'm in agreement, except that I'm more open-minded than you, I think, on marijuana. I don't mean to mock what you say at all but please understand that as I read it I couldn't help but see the analogy to my position on the main subject at hand (changed items in *bold*):




Except that's not the case....I'd bet cash money based on the lines at the gun stores here that I could field an army of gun owners in my Town yet I do not field any complaints about "gun activity" (that isn't associated with CRIMINALS like bank robbers, drug dealers, etc). 

The people in my Town are NOT complaining about their neighbors owning guns. And the working class gun owners are not bringing any sort of drama into the neighborhoods. And unlike dope. Some of the very BEST people I have ever met are gun enthusiasts. 

I've seen my share of gun suicides..some so recent the victim was still spasming on the ground. But I've seen more overdoses. 

I've said this MANY times and you plug your ears...statistics PROVE that "assault weapons" are a statistical non-entity in gun death numbers...handguns on the other hand.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2013)

Steve said:


> Historically, whenever we legalize something, it actually does help.



Nothing is that easy..read this about the "amazing" improvement in drug problems in Switzerland via their "needle park" idea. There were indeed SOME improvements but there were also problems that resulted in closing it down.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Ten_years_on_from_Needle_Park.html?cid=2517882


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2013)

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/m/metallica/master+of+puppets_20092140.html


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Where is it written you have a right to smoke crack I missed that amendment.  So who's rights am I restricting?



The 9th and 10th Amendment?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> This was a well-said and respectfully stated post and I appreciate hearing your experience on it. I'm in agreement, except that I'm more open-minded than you, I think, on marijuana. I don't mean to mock what you say at all but please understand that as I read it I couldn't help but see the analogy to my position on the main subject at hand (changed items in *bold*):



This is a great post and really draws at the heart of what I wanted to get at in this thread.  There is a lot of commonality in the positions and all we have to do is interchange drugs with firearms.  

I think the underlying principle is that people believe that they can force their view of risk on another.  I disagree with this position.  I think that people would be better off and society would be more peaceful if people were allowed to manage their own levels of risk.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> This is a great post and really draws at the heart of what I wanted to get at in this thread.  There is a lot of commonality in the positions and all we have to do is interchange drugs with firearms.
> 
> I think the underlying principle is that people believe that they can force their view of risk on another.  I disagree with this position.  I think that people would be better off and society would be more peaceful if people were allowed to manage their own levels of risk.




Your personal risk is one thing...your lifestyle bringing violence, upheaval, criminal activity and all the associated ******** next door to me? That's another matter.

A tool like a firearm and a recreational drug are two entirely different items.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Tgace said:


> A tool like a firearm and a recreational drug are two entirely different items.



Fair enough. But they can both bring considerable harm to those who aren't involved with either.


----------



## Drasken (Apr 14, 2013)

Also keep in mind, since we're on the topic of drugs now too, that the statistics for issues arising from abuse of hard drugs such as cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. Show these drugs to be far more dangerous than guns. In fact many of the gun statistics fail to show the very real correlation between drugs and gun violence, unless you're looking at the big picture.

Criminals use guns. It is a tool. The same as a needle is a tool. A needle used to inject insulin prescribed for diabetes is life saving. A needle used for injecting heroin is detrimental and can very well be life ending.
A gun used in self defense can very well be life saving. A gun used by the criminal is different. But registration of guns does nothing to stop a criminal. They aren't supposed to have that gun anyway. That is a regulation, theoretically to keep guns out of the hands of people shown to misuse the tool. But the criminals still have them.

The point Arni, that you fail to realize, is that current proposed laws do nothing. In Texas there IS no registration. But if my gun is stolen I will report it as stolen. If it WERE registered, how would that help? It's not like reporting it stolen does any good overall. And it doesn't mean that criminal will regester any firearm they have.

If guns are smuggled into this country (which does happen more often than people may want to believe) these guns aren't registered.
So the question is, HOW is this going to help?
Limiting magazine size. I can just carry 5 mags instead of 2. Reloading is a quick action. And magazines don't weigh enough to be a huge issue. So how does it help?

Seriously, instead of stomping your feet and yelling about how we are wrong, educate me. Tell me how the government's proposed plans do anything but limit law abiding citizens. Because logically it doesn't. The proposed laws do nothing to stop gun related suicide, domestic violence related murder, or accidents caused by negligence of safety proceedure and parental negligence. They just don't.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> This is a great post and really draws at the heart of what I wanted to get at in this thread.  There is a lot of commonality in the positions and all we have to do is interchange drugs with firearms.
> 
> I think the underlying principle is that people believe that they can force their view of risk on another.  I disagree with this position.  I think that people would be better off and society would be more peaceful if people were allowed to manage their own levels of risk.



Its part of living in a society.  When you choose to live in a society you choose to follow the rules that the society has deemed appropriate.  You dislike the rules move to a different society.  Sometimes society takes the rules too far and at least in our society we have a way to address it.  Problem happens when the Govt decides it does not need to follow the rules of the society.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Fair enough. But they can both bring considerable harm to those who aren't involved with either.



Except of the 300 million guns a very small % ever harm anyone can't say the same for drug addicts


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Drasken said:


> Limiting magazine size. I can just carry 5 mags instead of 2. Reloading is a quick action. And magazines don't weigh enough to be a huge issue. So how does it help?



By your logic, how does it hurt?



> Seriously, instead of stomping your feet and yelling about how we are wrong, educate me. Tell me how the government's proposed plans do anything but limit law abiding citizens. Because logically it doesn't. The proposed laws do nothing to stop gun related suicide, domestic violence related murder, or accidents caused by negligence of safety proceedure and parental negligence. They just don't.



Which laws do you mean? The proposed expanded background checks would keep some weapons out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Drug lords will still get guns but the guy who has a rap sheet of domestic violence might not, making a domestic murder less likely.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Its part of living in a society.  When you choose to live in a society you choose to follow the rules that the society has deemed appropriate.  You dislike the rules move to a different society.



We're in agreement. And since the vast majority of this society wants greater gun control...


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Except of the 300 million guns a very small % ever harm anyone can't say the same for drug addicts



You've got around 12k gun homicides per year and nearly 10 times as many injuries vs. what for drug addicts?


----------



## Drasken (Apr 14, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Your personal risk is one thing...your lifestyle bringing violence, upheaval, criminal activity and all the associated ******** next door to me? That's another matter.
> 
> A tool like a firearm and a recreational drug are two entirely different items.



I think that is an excellent point. And your previous post is very thought provoking. I will likely be seeing much of this myself, since I am applying to the police academy at the end of the year. I'm trying to keep an open mind, as I'm sure things aren't all black and white. And what I'm likely to see and experience if I do make it and become a LEO will probably change my mind drastically on many issues.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> By your logic, how does it hurt?


Everyone because it moves attention away from real things that can help and everyone focuses on feel good "look what we did for the children" laws.  Nothing effective gets done.



> Which laws do you mean? The proposed expanded background checks would keep some weapons out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Drug lords will still get guns but the guy who has a rap sheet of domestic violence might not, making a domestic murder less likely.



Problem is how its written.  The law passed here now says anyone convicted of multiple alcohol offenses is not allowed to own a firearm.  It gives no clarification on what multiple is so you get 1 arrest at 20 for underage possession if alcohol, a DUI at 21 and a drunk and disorderly at 22 and the state can deny you from owning a gun.  It has nothing to do with the running of the background check its changing the standards they apply to pass or fail.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> You've got around 12k gun homicides per year and nearly 10 times as many injuries vs. what for drug addicts?



Ask every heroin addicts mother if she's effected by drugs and you get back to me


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Everyone because it moves attention away from real things that can help and everyone focuses on feel good "look what we did for the children" laws.  Nothing effective gets done.
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is how its written.  The law passed here now says anyone convicted of multiple alcohol offenses is not allowed to own a firearm.  It gives no clarification on what multiple is so you get 1 arrest at 20 for underage possession if alcohol, a DUI at 21 and a drunk and disorderly at 22 and the state can deny you from owning a gun.  It has nothing to do with the running of the background check its changing the standards they apply to pass or fail.



People always love to say "try it and see"...they don't realize we see the hotdog making machinery that grinds out their great ideas.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> We're in agreement. And since the vast majority of this society wants greater gun control...



I have not seen anyone say that don't want gun control but  we want effective gun control and what's being tossed out by washingotn is NOT effective


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I have not seen anyone say that don't want gun control but  we want effective gun control and what's being tossed out by washingotn is NOT effective



QFT..

Assault Weapon Bans....seriously?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Drasken (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> By your logic, how does it hurt?
> 
> 
> 
> Which laws do you mean? The proposed expanded background checks would keep some weapons out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Drug lords will still get guns but the guy who has a rap sheet of domestic violence might not, making a domestic murder less likely.



Oh I'm all for background checks at gun shows and the like. As long as the citizen isn't paying huge dollars for them and there isn't a long waiting period. Heck, I went through a background check in 15 minutes when I bought my gun (at a pawn shop btw. They have had to run background checks at pawn shops here by law for a long time now) and walked out with it in less than 30 minutes. 

As far as limiting magazines and a national registry, well they could hurt. As stated before the 2nd amendment is also in place to protect us from government tyranny. If all guns are registered, a tyrannical government will start by rounding up all guns possible. It has been done many times before.
And please don't give me the old and tired "Can't or Won't happen here" argument. I'm sure everyone getting raped, murdered, robbed etc. Including victims of the mass shootings thought similar thoughts about it happening to them.

I'm not saying the government is tyrannical on the level with Nazi Germany or the USSR. But, I think that giving up an ability to protect oneself in the improbable, but far from impossible, occurrence in the future is moronic. Learn from history or you are doomed to repeat it.

Also, in the case of a foreign invasion which is also EXTREMELY unlikely but not impossible, every citizen should be expected to answer a call for armed militia with their own weapons.

Passing a law that doesn't address the problem at hand, because "What can it hurt?" Really? That's your answer?

Perhaps you should really research the reasoning behind the amendment before you go changing it.

Effective gun control addressing the real problems? Fine. But not this. They're using a problem to push an agenda that has no effect on the problem they are claiming to be solving.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2013)

On background checks..

Wife's cousin calls me 2 months ago...he tried to buy a gun.

Failed BG check...dealer cant tell him why hes is told to contact the FBI.

FBI requires you to pay for fingerprinting to straighten out BG check failures.

FBI says his data (name. Dob. Etc) "is similar" to a guy in NC who was put on the ban list....call THAT agency.

Calls that agency and is told he would have to come to NC with a lawyer to PROVE he wasn't this guy...wtf?

Cousin is able to talk directly to the judge..after many pleas.

Judge says he will fix the problem.

Cousin tries a gun purchase again...fails..note on reply says to call a phone#...supervisor approves sale.

Cousin afraid this will be a regular thing when NY demands BG checks for ammo purchases.


All this to exercise a right. Because his data was "close" to a guy 4 States away.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Drasken (Apr 14, 2013)

Tgace said:


> On background checks..
> 
> Wife's cousin tried to buy a gun.
> 
> ...



Yep. And my name is common. I've had to wait for 5 hours to pick up $250 wired to me from my parents because of similar issues. So I can only imagine buying guns or ammo.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

Look no farther then the no fly list stories people post all up in arms to see how well this is going to go.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Look no farther then the no fly list stories people post all up in arms to see how well this is going to go.



BINGO!

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jezr74 (Apr 14, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I'm not sure what you mean?



People are going to base their opinion on what they are used to now, ie. Account for current laws, rights etc.

I like the premise of your thread, how to managed society if you had to start from scratch.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> We're in agreement. And since the vast majority of this society wants greater gun control...



This is the debate that I'd like to address. The idea that society can dictate to everyone which risks are appropriate and which risks are not is a double edged sword. It can swing in all kinds of unintended directions and may swing in directions that make no rational sense. It's really ugly in practice and ends up criminalizing people who may not really be a threat to anyone.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

Drasken said:


> I think that is an excellent point. And your previous post is very thought provoking. I will likely be seeing much of this myself, since I am applying to the police academy at the end of the year. I'm trying to keep an open mind, as I'm sure things aren't all black and white. And what I'm likely to see and experience if I do make it and become a LEO will probably change my mind drastically on many issues.



Problem is that owning a firearm is also a lifestyle choice and it carries obvious risks to people in your community. There is no denying this. So, who gets to decide which risks are appropriate?


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Drasken said:


> I'm not saying the government is tyrannical on the level with Nazi Germany or the USSR. But



Yeah, you're the reasonable one in this conversation.


----------



## jezr74 (Apr 14, 2013)

Had there ever been a society even through history that was on the mark?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Drasken (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Yeah, you're the reasonable one in this conversation.



Hahahaha how am I unreasonable? Pointing out the original intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment? Pointing out that, while seriously unlikely, that nothing is impossible and that history, for those of us that actually were attentive in school, should definitely have shown us that?
I don't find that unreasonable. I find your lack of expressed knowledge about our Constitution, your lack of caring how these legislations are being pushed through with no actual knowledge of what they contain, and the lack of care that there IS no compromise or actual debate on the subject at the governmental level on BOTH sides to be unreasonable.

But I'm sure you view me, and would like to make me out to be, some redneck in a bunker wearing an aluminum foil hat. Shame the reality is that I'm not.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

&#8220;No one is taking away all the guns. But now I get it.  Now I see what is happening. So this is what it is, their paranoid fear  of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual  dystopic present. We can&#8217;t even begin to address 30,000 gun deaths that  are actually in reality happening in this country every year because a  few of us must remain vigilant against the rise of imaginary Hitler.&#8221;

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/...s-rant-guns-needed-to-fight-imaginary-hitler/


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> This is the debate that I'd like to address. The idea that society can dictate to everyone which risks are appropriate and which risks are not is a double edged sword. It can swing in all kinds of unintended directions and may swing in directions that make no rational sense. It's really ugly in practice and ends up criminalizing people who may not really be a threat to anyone.



Which was why amendments were bright line limits that need a convention to alter.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Which was why amendments were bright line limits that need a convention to alter.



Conventions? For amendments? Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

For example, we amended to have Prohibition, and then to repeal it, without any convention; we altered the election of the VP without one.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Problem is that owning a firearm is also a lifestyle choice and it carries obvious risks to people in your community. There is no denying this. So, who gets to decide which risks are appropriate?



But they also have benefits....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Tgace said:


> But they also have benefits....



The benefits accrue principally to the owner but the risks accrue not only to the owner but also to others.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

Tgace said:


> But they also have benefits....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



That could be sais for a lot of forms of risk that are prohibited.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Conventions? For amendments? Read this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
> 
> For example, we amended to have Prohibition, and then to repeal it, without any convention; we altered the election of the VP without one.



How does a peice of paper that most citizens never agreed to follow dare to constrain what another person can do with their bodies? Where does that power come from? Seems to me that if we look at it objectively, all we are left with is one group of people telling another what they can and cannot do. where does this power come from? What makes one group of people deserving of this power over another group of people?


----------



## Drasken (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> &#8220;No one is taking away all the guns. But now I get it.  Now I see what is happening. So this is what it is, their paranoid fear  of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual  dystopic present. We can&#8217;t even begin to address 30,000 gun deaths that  are actually in reality happening in this country every year because a  few of us must remain vigilant against the rise of imaginary Hitler.&#8221;
> 
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/...s-rant-guns-needed-to-fight-imaginary-hitler/



No, I don't think you're getting what I'm trying to get through to you. I was illustrating what the 2nd Amendment was meant for. And no it's not an imagined threat I am talking about. It is a very remote possibility. But it was one of the reasons the founding fathers wrote this for.

My point is that the laws proposed do nothing to deal with our current problem and set up other real issues without helping to correct the problems in our present society. There is real concern here.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> &#8220;No one is taking away all the guns. But now I get it.  Now I see what is happening. So this is what it is, their paranoid fear  of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual  dystopic present. We can&#8217;t even begin to address 30,000 gun deaths that  are actually in reality happening in this country every year because a  few of us must remain vigilant against the rise of imaginary Hitler.&#8221;
> 
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/...s-rant-guns-needed-to-fight-imaginary-hitler/



But they are taking guns away.  Over 100 different guns will be banned here tomorrow.  That's the point.  Then to ad to it morons that know nothing about guns are making the list so an AR15 is banned but an AR10 isn't.  A 30 rnd mag is banned but 3 ten rnd mags no problem.  The laws make zero sense.  They have no rhyme or reason.  A mini 14 OK a mini 14 with bayonet lug banned. You say we don't want to prevent crime I put my life on the line every day to prevent crime.  I want actual laws that will work not this crap they are passing and presenting now.   Grab a few greaving moms throw them on TV to get your way.  Its all BS and you know it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> How does a peice of paper that most citizens never agreed to follow dare to constrain what another person can do with their bodies? Where does that power come from? Seems to me that if we look at it objectively, all we are left with is one group of people telling another what they can and cannot do. where does this power come from? What makes one group of people deserving of this power over another group of people?


You do agree to follow it.  By staying in society you agree to follow society's rules.  I'm not sure how it can be any more clear.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You say we don't want to prevent crime



No, I'm sure you do--you're just unwilling to bend to do so.



> I want actual laws that will work not this crap they are passing and presenting now.



But you've repeatedly stated your belief that laws don't work--that murders are committed even though murder is illegal, so why bother?



> Its all BS and you know it.



If I know that, why am I bothering? This position is juvenile.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The topic was actually medical care for people who engage in behaviors with known risks.



Well, AIDS, outside of male homosexuality is pretty hard to catch. Is that a behavior with a known risk to you? Name a STD one can contract without choice or crime?


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You do agree to follow it.  By staying in society you agree to follow society's rules.  I'm not sure how it can be any more clear.



Agreed. And we'll be changing some of those rules w.r.t. guns.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> No, I'm sure you do--you're just unwilling to bend to do so.


Well I could get even more illegal guns if we could bend the 4th amendment too.  Its for the kids after all.  In fact almost all of our homicides happen at night and on the streets or outside so how about mandatory curfews for all citizens if were really trying to save people.


> But you've repeatedly stated your belief that laws don't work--that murders are committed even though murder is illegal, so why bother?


Laws don't work if they did we wouldn't need law enforcement the law would be enough. SO give me laws that will work.  After my newest purchase I will own 7 semi automatic rifles ARs AKs SKS ext.  When the ban gets signed here tomorrow I'll still own that many.  If next month I snap the gun ban can't stop me I'm already armed.  In July when I take my kids to Disney someone steals my gun safe and gets it open and shoots up a school the gun ban did nothing.  The guns are already here. I have a buddy that works for a local gun maker they make AR platform weapons they have a 7 month back order for AR15s this is a small company they can make and put together about 200 AR15s a day.  He says he's getting over 100 calls for new orders a day.  The guns are already here banning them now won't help anyone.



> If I know that, why am I bothering? This position is juvenile.



I have no idea your smart enough to know better but it feels good to do something to try it out for the good of the kids


----------



## jezr74 (Apr 14, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Well, AIDS, outside of male homosexuality is pretty hard to catch. Is that a behavior with a known risk to you?



"rolls eyes"

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You do agree to follow it.  By staying in society you agree to follow society's rules.  I'm not sure how it can be any more clear.



If someone gives you two choices and forces you to pick one, that's not an agreement.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> When the ban gets signed here tomorrow I'll still own that many.



But the next person won't be able to buy them. We have to start somewhere, sometime. Anyway, banning specific weapons isn't a key part of what I'd like to see.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> But the next person won't be able to buy them. We have to start somewhere, sometime. Anyway, banning specific weapons isn't a key part of what I'd like to see.



Yet, you've argued that no one needs an "assault rifle" etc...


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Well, AIDS, outside of male homosexuality is pretty hard to catch.



Your information is decades out of date.



> Name a STD one can contract without choice or crime?



A number of them can be passed from mother to child at birth.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Yet, you've argued that no one needs an "assault rifle" etc...



As usual, you're conflating my position with your NRA-fueled fantasies. No one needs anything but food water and shelter, I suppose.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> If someone gives you two choices and forces you to pick one, that's not an agreement.



There is always more then 2 choices. Choice #3 move to a different society.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> But the next person won't be able to buy them. We have to start somewhere, sometime. Anyway, banning specific weapons isn't a key part of what I'd like to see.



in your opinion why start with rifles.  If a majority of gun deaths murder and suicides a rifle is not used why start there?


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> in your opinion why start with rifles.  If a majority of gun deaths murder and suicides a rifle is not used why start there?



I don't know. You and your neighbors elected those folks in MD--you tell me what their reasoning is. I want to start with better background checks, mandatory education for licensing, and improved safe storage laws/unsafe storage penalties. But the answer to your previous post is still that the fact that things are bad now and will remain so for the foreseeable future doesn't mean we shouldn't make any changes--it means that the sooner we make them, the sooner we might see an effect. A 10-year AWB isn't esp. effective as guns have a better than 10 year useful lifespan. After 30 years they'd be rarer--lost, damaged, poorly maintained, confiscated, etc. Prohibition of alcohol didn't eliminate it until what people had in stock was drunk up. Stuff was imported or made here illegally, but it sure made it harder for the average person.

Printable guns could change all this eventually, of course. It's a brave new world out there.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> There is always more then 2 choices. Choice #3 move to a different society.



Nope.  This isn't an agreement.  It's a false choice.  There are only two choices that might not get you thrown in the slammer or worse, leave or follow the rules (and sometimes, leaving a society is breaking the rules, especially if you try to take your property with you).  Choice 3 would be to break the rules in some way, but that's where one group of people claims to have the right to force you to follow the rules.  This is the basis of the Rule of Law isn't it?  Or perhaps we could call it the Law of Rulers.

There isn't anything objective about the one group of people we call Rulers in a society and the Rules.  Our Founding Fathers actually noted this and tried to deal with the concept when they created the government.  It's the whole "All Men Are Created Equal" bit, but then they went on and started created exceptions to this when they created the rest of the government.  

The problem is that the whole edifice is based off of nothing but belief.  We can look at each other across the table at each other and objectively there is no reason why one of us should rule over the other, but if one of us is wearing the right clothing and official jewelry, we might now have the power to force you to do what we want.  This is a problem because it means that our whole basis of organizing society is built on an irrational principle.  It's the same irrational principle that all religions and gods are based off of.  They simply do not exist in any objective sense.  If everyone stopped believing tomorrow, the religion disappears, the people in costumes wearing fancy jewelry become just that.

It's ironic that belief in government is false in exactly the same way religions are false, because so many atheists are strong supporters of government power.  They literally have transferred their belief from one religion to another and don't realize it.  Or course for others, the people who believe in gods, the belief in government makes perfect sense as well.  Irrationality welcomes itself.

That said, I guess if I have to answer my own questions in this thread, I'd have to say that there is no rational basis for one group of people to dictate/prohibit what is risky and what is not for another.  We can pretend to use reason and facts to back up our argument for or against risk, but as soon as an appeal to law is made, it doesn't matter any more.  One group is claiming that they have the right to initiate force against everyone different in order to make them do what they want.

Objectively, the only way to have a real discussion is to take force out of the equation.  At the very best, you can attempt to craft an argument that uses reason and evidence to back up your point about what is risky and some people might agree.  Some others might not...and that is their right as sovereign equal humans.  They can form a community and you can form a community and the world is still big enough to house us all.  

And, no, this is not what we have now.  Our world is a geography of invisible lines where one group of people claims the Rule of Law over everyone within a geographic area. However, the Law of Rulers is false.  People are equal and free and society won't make any sense until humanity can truly express this.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

there is not now has never been and can never be a "free" society.  the very nature of a society means there are rules that must be followed.  Even cavemen had rules you gotta pee go outside of the cave.  Even animals learn not to go to the bathroom in their dens.  There will always be people in all societies that will prey on others and that means we will need rules in place to deal with these people.  You cant have the perfect society without perfect humans and there are none of them on earth right now


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> but it sure made it harder for the average person.



The average person isnt the problem


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 14, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I don't know. You and your neighbors elected those folks in MD--you tell me what their reasoning is.


A majority of the state is held hostage by Baltimore City and the 2 counties that are connected to Washington DC that are full of liberal transplants from all over the country that come here to work in DC. I can assure you my neighbors and I didnt vote for this nonsense.  Our states so stupid we passed a "Rain Tax" 150 a year in a new tax just to protect the bay from rain run off.  Then we DOUBLED our gas tax its goin up .23 over the next 2 years.  


> I want to start with better background checks,


I agree depending on how its written it need clear and concise set of requirements for what prevents people form being allowed to buy a gun no opened ended statements like "multiple convictions fr crimes involving Alcohol 


> mandatory education for licensing,


Should not need a license to exercise a constitutional right


> and improved safe storage laws/unsafe storage penalties.


How do you check for compliance?


> But the answer to your previous post is still that the fact that things are bad now and will remain so for the foreseeable future doesn't mean we shouldn't make any changes--it means that the sooner we make them, the sooner we might see an effect. A 10-year AWB isn't esp. effective as guns have a better than 10 year useful lifespan. After 30 years they'd be rarer--lost, damaged, poorly maintained, confiscated, etc. Prohibition of alcohol didn't eliminate it until what people had in stock was drunk up. Stuff was imported or made here illegally, but it sure made it harder for the average person.


I never said we didnt need to make changes nobody has said that we want real changes that will work.  as you said a 10 year ban will do nothing.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The average person isnt the problem



As compared to drug dealers etc., 'average' people account for a lot of gun deaths in senseless arguments, domestic violence, accidents, etc. The guy who kills his kid while cleaning his gun did something wrong but is still Joe Average most likely.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> How do you check for compliance?



Let's start with heavy penalties if it turns out post facto that you didn't, or if it's found incidental to something else. I don't foresee inspections--I want heavy penalties and a PR campaign.




> I never said we didnt need to make changes nobody has said that we want real changes that will work.  as you said a 10 year ban will do nothing.



Ten years isn't enough. You're pretty short on ideas that'd help, though.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> there is not now has never been and can never be a "free" society.  the very nature of a society means there are rules that must be followed.  Even cavemen had rules you gotta pee go outside of the cave.  Even animals learn not to go to the bathroom in their dens.  There will always be people in all societies that will prey on others and that means we will need rules in place to deal with these people.  You cant have the perfect society without perfect humans and there are none of them on earth right now



I think you can have a society that has a certain amount of freedom and you can have a society that has a lot more freedom.  The freest society would be one without the Law of Rulers, where agreements are voluntary and you are responsible for the effects of those agreements.  History can be viewed as a progression where humans increasingly see themselves as equal to one another and ultimately question the premise of having power over another.  Societies have made lots of progress with slavery.  They've made lots of progress with equal rights for women.  This can all be viewed as a slow and steady march to a society that is more equal and more free and more based in reason.  

We can reason that black people are human and deserve individual autonomy.  We can reason that women are equal to men despite the sexual dimorphism and deserve the same treatment in society.  We can also reason that the Divine Right of Kings is not a rational basis for Rulership.  When we can enter into voluntary agreements regarding societies rules and form our own groups, we'll be more free to a degree that we don't have now.  It's not impossible, it's just something that people could actually work toward in the future.

That said, I think the Founding Fathers made huge strides toward protecting individual liberty with the Constitution.  It's not perfect, because I think they still accepted some of the irrational premises of the past, but it's better than most of the founding documents for the various nations of the world.  That said, imagine letting states decide some of these issues revolving around risk.  If smaller groups of people got to decide how society was going to be ruled (even though the basis for rule is irrational) we'd have a greater degree of freedom.  

The exception is Firearms.  For Americans, this was considered a fundamental right and risk be damned.  "Shall not be infringed" seems clear to me.


----------



## Drasken (Apr 15, 2013)

Here's a couple of ideas.

1. Focus on education. Our education system is so messed up it isn't even funny anymore. Schools with lower test scores get less money when it's obvious they probably need more help. Every month or so I see them closing more schools, many of them inner city schools, and packing kids in already overcrowded classrooms of other schools. Help our kids. Our national education average is pretty low compared to other countries. We, as a country, have fallen pretty significantly from where we used to be here.

2. It's not all the government's fault.... Yeah.... I'll give you time to pick your jaw up off the ground. That's right, I'm really not all anti government, despite what you may think of me Arni. Parents need to raise their friggin kids. Parents just don't seem to care anymore. On 3 seperate occasions while I worked at a video game store in the mall I had 3 seperate children urinate on my store's floor. The parents didn't care. And I'm talking 5 and 6 year olds that stood there and wet themselves. Then the parents get mad when I hand them a roll of paper towels and tell thm to clean their kid's mess. On top of that, kids that young being bought Grand Theft Auto, and similar games.... Really!? And I can't even count how many times a parent would leave children as young as 4 in my store by themselves as their parents went shopping...
The fault lies not in video games. Not in violent movies. Not in rap music idolizing the "gangsta" It is squarely on the shoulders of negligent parents.

3. Focus on less spending of tax money on stupid crap, and help get our country back on track. I find it infuriating that we can't seem to find the money to support the programs we have now. So what's the plan for gun violence? Set up programs that will cost more money we don't have? SOUNDS GREAT TO ME.

4. Gun safety courses. Great idea. Let's do it.

5. Harsh penalties for negligent parents contributing to injury of a child.

6. Focus more on fixing the friggin unemployment problem. Desperate people will commit crimes. Even you. If you were starving you might not mug someone, but you'd steal food from a store. Guarantee it if you're desperate enough. Now couple that with lack of education and an easy money source (or perceived to be easy) that is glorified in today's society. The drug dealing, gun toting "gangsta" what happens? Lots of stupid kids and young adults slinging dope and carrying guns they bought off some dude in a back alley.

7. Clearly written laws about background checks. I do believe requiring a background check to sell a weapon to a complete stranger at a gun show is not too much to ask. While it IS easy to find guns on the street, and Cartels ARE smuggling in weapons, which will increase if heavier laws mean it IS more profitable for them to sell on the street due to higher demand... Well only an idiot would think criminals don't buy from gun shows if no background checks are run. I'm sure they do.
However we need clear parameters on what will make you fail a check to buy a weapon. Open ended nonsense will screw things up very badly. And NO registry for gun owners. I'm against that as it doesn't help anything dealing with crime or mass shootings.

There are all kinds of things that will help with our violent crime rate. And crime in general. Not all of them are gun legislation either.
Address the real problem not put more restrictions and sweep the issue under the rug.

I do think that doing nothing is unacceptable. But you don't cure a disease by treating a symptom. Our society has issues that LEAD to gun violence. So fix these issues. Guns have been a big part of our society for as long as our country was just a happy idea. Trying to fight against guns here is like trying to ice skate uphill. And our gun ownership hasn't grown, it's actually declined or stayed pretty even for our history. Heck you could get guns mailed to you from magazine's in the past. But something has definitely changed. And with this change has been more gun violence.

But our society wants quick fixes, they don't want true solutions. But quick fixes don't work. Like fad diets you see some small change and then it fizzles out.
We need to admit where we went wrong as a society. Take responsibility. Learn from our mistakes and fix the problem. But we don't think in terms of "Fix what broke" anymore. We just want change. So instead of fixing the issues, we restrict more... And more... And more. Which just causes more and more problems.

We need to think logically, not emotionally too. Pushing crying parents of murdered children in our face is disgusting exploitation to push an agenda based on fear, guilt and raw emotion rather than logical thinking.
Focus on the solution, not the problem...


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 15, 2013)

arnisador said:


> As compared to drug dealers etc., 'average' people account for a lot of gun deaths in senseless arguments, domestic violence, accidents, etc. The guy who kills his kid while cleaning his gun did something wrong but is still Joe Average most likely.


No he's an idiot and not an average person.  300 million guns 99.9% never hurt anyone.  Every case of accident or murder is an exception to the rule.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 15, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I think you can have a society that has a certain amount of freedom and you can have a society that has a lot more freedom.  The freest society would be one without the Law of Rulers, where agreements are voluntary and you are responsible for the effects of those agreements.  History can be viewed as a progression where humans increasingly see themselves as equal to one another and ultimately question the premise of having power over another.  Societies have made lots of progress with slavery.  They've made lots of progress with equal rights for women.  This can all be viewed as a slow and steady march to a society that is more equal and more free and more based in reason.
> 
> We can reason that black people are human and deserve individual autonomy.  We can reason that women are equal to men despite the sexual dimorphism and deserve the same treatment in society.  We can also reason that the Divine Right of Kings is not a rational basis for Rulership.  When we can enter into voluntary agreements regarding societies rules and form our own groups, we'll be more free to a degree that we don't have now.  It's not impossible, it's just something that people could actually work toward in the future.
> 
> ...



What you looking for does not exist my friend.  Your best bet is to move to a 3rd world country buy a xrpa load of land and start your own "free" society .  you will still see that humans are inherently dangerous and eventually will pretty on others


----------



## celtic_crippler (Apr 15, 2013)

The concept, in and of itself, is fairly simple: if youre not causing or threatening bodily injury to another or damage to someone elses property there should be no reason to dictate control over their actions. 

Problems with this otherwise simple concept begin to arise when:


Personal responsibility is overlooked, eliminated, and/or forgotten.
People over reach in their perspectives about what actions create risk to others and then take it to extremes.
Introduce lawyers and legislators into the equation

Others get it in their heads that it is their duty to protect me from myself and/or believe they know better what is good for me than I do.
Government oversteps its responsibility and gets involved in areas it does not belong and thereby creates environments that previously did not exist where there was no risk of harm to others and subsequently creates an environment where there is now a perception that an action can indeed create a risk of harm to others. Example: Involvement in healthcare (cigarettes, food, beverage restrictions, etc)
 
Bigger government always equates to fewer freedoms. You cant have both. The Founders knew this and that is why they established a LIMITED government; because they valued liberty and freedom. They also knew that personal responsibility was an integral part of that equation.


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 15, 2013)

Yes the concept is simple.  But its not reality.  We live in a society and we decide what rules we want and what we don't.  If society say we don't want you texting while driving we think is bad then poof it is what it is.  The prob with govt is they were given a set of rules to govern by but they have broken the rules


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> What you looking for does not exist my friend.  Your best bet is to move to a 3rd world country buy a xrpa load of land and start your own "free" society .  you will still see that humans are inherently dangerous and eventually will pretty on others



The only thing I would like is to be more free tomorrow than I am today.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 15, 2013)

celtic_crippler said:


> The concept, in and of itself, is fairly simple: if you&#8217;re not causing or threatening bodily injury to another or damage to someone else&#8217;s&#8217; property there should be no reason to dictate control over their actions.
> 
> Problems with this otherwise simple concept begin to arise when:
> 
> ...



Personal responsibility is routinely derided...


----------



## arnisador (Apr 15, 2013)

Thanks for your detailed answer. I find much to agree with in principle but it's less clear to me how you would, for example, simply fix the parenting problem. 



Drasken said:


> Focus on the solution, not the problem...



Unfortunately, root causes are often hard to address under the best of circumstances...sometimes fighting the symptoms is all we've got. I'd love to see lower unemployment, which would indeed help--as would people not drinking when near guns and not buying drugs, which fuels much violence.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> No he's an idiot and not an average person.  300 million guns 99.9% never hurt anyone.  Every case of accident or murder is an exception to the rule.



This is a well-known fallacious line of reasoning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman


----------



## arnisador (Apr 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> you will still see that humans are inherently dangerous and eventually will *pretty *on others



Sorry, I just can't let this one go.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 15, 2013)

Big Don said:


> Personal responsibility is routinely derided...



If my neighbor stores gasoline in his garage where he smokes, I'm at risk because of his lack of responsibility. Of course, until an accident happens, everything is fine...or is it?

It doesn't work for me for my safety to rely on your sense of personal responsibility. As George Carlin said: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 15, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Sorry, I just can't let this one go.



stupid auto correct


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 15, 2013)

arnisador said:


> This is a well-known fallacious line of reasoning:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman



Prove me wrong then.  They est. between 250 million and 300 million guns in the US vs how many accidents a year? Its just a fact almost every gun made will never be involved in an accident or a crime.  the ones that are is a very small %


----------



## ballen0351 (Apr 15, 2013)

arnisador said:


> If my neighbor stores gasoline in his garage where he smokes, I'm at risk because of his lack of responsibility. Of course, until an accident happens, everything is fine...or is it?
> 
> It doesn't work for me for my safety to rely on your sense of personal responsibility. As George Carlin said: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."


So we need to now do spot safety inspections on houses because someone on your street might be an idiot


----------



## arnisador (Apr 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Prove me wrong then.  They est. between 250 million and 300 million guns in the US vs how many accidents a year? Its just a fact almost every gun made will never be involved in an accident or a crime.  the ones that are is a very small %



Same for Sudafed, lawn darts, and toys with small parts that present choking hazards.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So we need to now do spot safety inspections on houses because someone on your street might be an idiot



_Everyone _on my street is an idiot--esp. the neighbor behind me. But once again you take an observation and make it a bizarre absolute. Not everything that sucks is a call for Big Brother to institute a totalitarian govt. But I could be hurt because someone else lacks responsibility. Wouldn't you agree that that sucks?


----------

