Strong Reason to Retain the Second Amendment
- Thread starter Sukerkin
- Start date
I'm really starting to think your mission here Arni is to kill this site, or piss as many people off as you can.
So is 1/100,000 a significant number?
Tgace
Grandmaster
http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm
1/10,000 chance of being struck by lightening in your lifetime....
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
Guns in the home are risky. This isn't news. What needs to be considered, IMO, is the idea that people be allowed to manage these risks without the State interfering. Imagine a world where the government's bar for risk, aka the time they step in and make a law, is 1 in 100,000.
Guns would be out of homes. So would pools. Bathtubs would have water depth limits. There would be no children allowed in kitchens. Children would not be allowed outside on farms. Kids couldn't ride bikes without suits of armor or on the street. Adults wouldn't begin driving until 25. Hell, most of the **** I did as a kid is now illegal. It's a very strange world that emerges if we universalize an aversion to this level of risk.
I think this simple comparison points out your bias, Arni. Why do you feel this way about guns and not these other things that have similar levels of risk? Especially when the cost benefits of certain risks are literally zero on the benefits side. It doesn't make any rational sense especially when you consider the fact that so many other mundane things we simply accept have far higher risks than simply having a gun in the home.
Lastly, consider the fact that we are even talking about making a law at all regarding this behavior. In a very real sense, you are saying that you'd like some guys with costumes to point guns at me (and others) in order to force us to accept your view of risk tolerance. I realize this is a commonly accepted way of running a democratic society, but if you look at this objectively, this is a very, shall we say, impolite way of organizing society.
Guns would be out of homes. So would pools. Bathtubs would have water depth limits. There would be no children allowed in kitchens. Children would not be allowed outside on farms. Kids couldn't ride bikes without suits of armor or on the street. Adults wouldn't begin driving until 25. Hell, most of the **** I did as a kid is now illegal. It's a very strange world that emerges if we universalize an aversion to this level of risk.
I think this simple comparison points out your bias, Arni. Why do you feel this way about guns and not these other things that have similar levels of risk? Especially when the cost benefits of certain risks are literally zero on the benefits side. It doesn't make any rational sense especially when you consider the fact that so many other mundane things we simply accept have far higher risks than simply having a gun in the home.
Lastly, consider the fact that we are even talking about making a law at all regarding this behavior. In a very real sense, you are saying that you'd like some guys with costumes to point guns at me (and others) in order to force us to accept your view of risk tolerance. I realize this is a commonly accepted way of running a democratic society, but if you look at this objectively, this is a very, shall we say, impolite way of organizing society.
Tgace
Grandmaster
Does anybody really NEED a swimming pool? They are a luxury item...I think there should be a law stating that people with children shouldn't be allowed to own them. If you own one it better be secured from childrens access. I should be able to inspect your pool and charge you with a felony for any violation.
Its for the children after all.....
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
Its for the children after all.....
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
I've been struck by lightening twice!
Tgace
Grandmaster
I hear California and NY are considering taxing lightning, and banning Assault Lightning (that's more than 5 tendrils, or more than 100 dB on the crack)
Ok, seriously though, the reason for the 2nd is defense, defense of self, family, home, town, state and nation, from threats internal and external.
Hunting, target shooting, etc is all secondary.
The reason for keeping it is a simple one: We aren't safe. Not from the criminals who prey on our homes and families, not from the illegals invading, not from crazy terrorists and hostile nations, and not from our own government encroaching more and more.
This doesn't mean it's time to go vigilante, man the barricades, or storm the white house.
It just means that this isn't Star Trek, and there are still threats out there.
So...do we do anything because of that? Like, make an effort to educate the public on risks and what to do when there is a chance of a lightning strike? Move people out of the water or off of a playing field in a storm? Put lightning rods on buildings? Insure cars are properly insulated by their tires? Mind you, there's a lot less that can be done about the weather than about man-made objects.
And we granting yet that this was another BS gun statistic that ended up being trumpeted by an uncritical pro-guns website that credulous gun-lovers were only too happy to adopt?
Well, at least you're taking this seriously.
How many mass attacks committed by swimming pools recently?
Big Don
Sr. Grandmaster
How many with guns? What you can't seem to grasp, is that mass attacks are the exception, not the norm.
This is current in Australia, all pools require fences, and are inspected with fines if they are not there, or are not the correct size etc and approved.
Think this is happening in the states soon.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
How many mass attacks were committed by guns?
You beat me to my riposte. LOL!
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...nt-of-risk-in-a-society?p=1568972#post1568972
I've started a new thread about the whole idea that we can manage risk at all with law. I think a lot of posters here are giving Arni a lot of grief, but don't realize that they hold many views about other forms of risk that are far less dangerous than firearms. If you would like to compare your views on seatbelts, helmets, drugs, guns, terrorism, pools, lightening, etc, click the above link and be prepared to be outed as a hypocrite...or not...hopefully.
I've started a new thread about the whole idea that we can manage risk at all with law. I think a lot of posters here are giving Arni a lot of grief, but don't realize that they hold many views about other forms of risk that are far less dangerous than firearms. If you would like to compare your views on seatbelts, helmets, drugs, guns, terrorism, pools, lightening, etc, click the above link and be prepared to be outed as a hypocrite...or not...hopefully.
That's not the point. There is no benefit of having a pool at your house. People live without them all of the time. Yet, they are far more dangerous than firearms and there is no law banning them.
Pools are more dangerous than all forms of crime combined.
http://www.cdc.gov/features/dsdrowningrisks/
Cheeseburgers can kill you orders of magnitude more than guns.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm
Yet, pot is illegal, go figure...
Does that mean we can't try to address the issue? Jarts (lawn darts) were killing a lot fewer people than mass attacks, and they were banned (here and in Canada):
http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Newsroom/New...awn-Darts-Are-Banned-and-Should-Be-Destroyed/
Now, we had Jarts and I liked them and I'm not crazy about this decision, but--as with choking hazards in toys, where a single death will prompt a recall--yeah, we've taken big action for accidental risks much smaller than 70 deaths of kids per year and 700 injuries of kids, let alone 30k deaths overall per year from guns. Mass attacks kill enough people a year to be worth addressing if possible. I'd rather look at gun violence on a bigger scale than just mass attacks, but the NRA owns too many senators to get enough sensible legislation through. Still, the expanded background checks idea is something--and it addresses all guns without banning any.
It depends on the region, but pools can have some regulations, but again that's not the point. Here in Hawaii, tourists drown in the ocean. Way more people die attempting to swim than are shot by guns. Yet, the State does not regulate who can and cannot go into the ocean. The lifeguards aren't carrying guns and pointing them at people in order to convince them to not swim in rip currents. Somehow, the risk is managed and the deaths that occur are accepted by the people. Why are guns so different?
