• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by theguyfromtheVale

  1. Yes, that was indeed a typo. I meant that reducing fatalities counts as a success for me even if the number of violent crimes stays the same or evne if that increases, as deaths are far more consequential than bruises or even broken bones. I'm surprised to have to state this like some out-there radical new idea, to be quite honest. Because that's definitely not what it is.
  2. My reading of that clause is that the first comma in it is either archaic or a typo. Can't tell, I'm not a native speaker or a linguist. But the comma in there makes no sense syntactically. Without that comma, the sentence seems a lot clearer.
  3. Isn't reducing death and grave injuries that result from violence a worthy goal in itself, even if overall violence is reduced? Now of course, this will be a tradeoff, which is almost no place restricts access to kitchen knives, but almost every country on earth restricts access to guns. But the overall point is that violence involving guns is far more lethal than violence involving knives, which is again far more lethal than violence involving bare knuckles.
  4. Well... Should we take that as a good sign, that even such ingrained stupidities can eventually change? Or rather as a sign that the US is even less able to rectify wrongs than Saudi Arabia, of all places?
  5. OK, so how do we get the hands out of violent lunatics without also taking away the guns of some non-violent lunatics? How do we tell the difference? Or do you think we'll just have to wait until they get violent? Because in that case, we'll have no chance to reduce Vegas-style killing sprees. Or suicides, for that matter.
  6. No. Just numerically illiterate. It's quite frequent. MC at least knows that being a majority makes people of that group more likely to be found in any kind of position, which is progress, I guess, but this poster still has no idea what over- or underrepresentation is, apparently.
  7. The word you're looking for is "parabolic". Or possibly "elliptic".
  8. ... wait. I'm agreeing with Rush Limbaugh? We sure seem to have gone through one strange looking glass.
  9. Because far too many people in your country do own guns for "protection" (i.e., killing other humans in case they intrude). Which raises the stakes for criminals - but that only means they need to be armed, too. Which makes home invasions far scarier for all involved, far more scary than they need to be. People who say they own a gun for protection is what I'm mainly arguing against; those are the largest danger, as their gun ownership is simultaneously unnecessary and dangerous to them and their families.
  10. A market with low supply will also lead to lower demand, as the goods will be more expensive. Less guns lying around in homes means criminals have less access to guns. At the same time, less guns also makes guns less attractive to burglars. Yes, Law enforcement has guns, too, but they only very rarely catch burglars red-handed. So, burglars don't need guns to protect against Law Enforcement; their best protection against the police is speed, not arms. On the other hand, guns are very valuable for them to protect themselves against armed home owners trying to catch them in a shootout. Once guns are only found in very few homes, the burglars' need for guns evaporates.
  11. @Michael Seswatha Jordan Again, I'm not calling for a gun ban. I am calling for a change in gun culture. This is, in many ways, even harder. But it's the only way to make this work: The idea that people should own guns to kill other people (instead of animals, or target boards) needs to die. Quickly. If a ban accomplishes that, fine, but I don't think that's necessary, or even the best possible way to do it. And what I am saying is that this is not about whether you personnally own a gun or not. It's about whether you think owning a gun to kill other human beings is a socially and morally acceptable position.
  12. @Michael Seswatha Jordan Also, I do not want your pity. I am fine. Pity those children and young adults in your country who are not as fortunate as I was and who manage to kill themselves because their parents thought their guns would protect them and their offspring. I went on to live, they die, totally unnecessarily.
  13. I'm not necessarily advocating a full-out ban. I'm advocating a change in culture where people stop getting guns to protect themselves from intruders, only to introduce a high risk of successful suicide for anyone in that family who becomes depressed - something that, statistically, happens to around 30% of the population, far higher than the percentage of the population killed during home invasions. Most burglars want to just get in, grab the valuables and get out. The fact that so many people in the US have guns is what makes them gun up too, to protect themselves during their crime; home invasions would actually be less scary with less guns around! Also consider that guns are valuable - and so themselves a target for burglars. If you own a gun to hunt, or for sports, you can actually put it somewhere safe if you don't use it; if you have it to protect yourself from burglars, you need it readily available at all times - and so it becomes readily available for depressed family members or the very burglars you want to use it against. Once guns are less prevalent, it will also be harder for criminals to get their hands on them. Yes, there will be a time period where they will still have them, but once there are less guns around, both the need for criminals to be armed during their crimes as well as the availability of those very firearms makes even crime far less dangerous for the victims of said crimes. And those people who will die to criminals in that period? They would have died without a change in that culture, too - and many more like them would continue to do so.
  14. Speaking as someone who has experienced it, suicidality is, most of the time, an impulsive thing. When I considered suicide, I had no avenue towards it readily available - and just leaving the house to get something to achieve my goal made me reconsider. If my parents had had a gun at home, I'd have died before turning 18. This was over a decade ago, I'm still alive, and quite happy about that fact. Excessive guns lying around is something that makes suicides far more likely to succeed. Now I know the suicides around you didn't involve guns - but about half of all suicides in the US do. Just reducing the number of households owning guns would do a lot to make suicide in the US far less common. Your refusal to consider the effects of US gun culture and your own participation in it is costing the lives of depressed eople every day. I ask you to reconsider your stance on this.
  15. Well, Brexit was quite the step towards bringing the Troubles back all by itself. Once the ROI/NI border goes up, it's not too unlikely to flare up once more. So, yes, voting for Brexit was messing with peace in North Ireland. It's a pity that wasn't really even being discussed during the campaign. After all, there might be quite a few older Brexit voters who still remember those times and might have decided differently if they had been more aware of this consequence.
  16. That would at least be an almost realistic idea. Well, except for the DUP of course. But without the snap election, it could have been. That the Ireland issue got so little discussion during the Brexit debate is almost criminal.
  17. Brexit might have been a good occasion to consider the option of Irish reunification. But then, of course, May had to call for a snap election, lose her majority, and is now at the mercy of the DUP, so that option is off the table from the start. Sometimes, it feels like the Tories want the issues around Brexit to have as few solutions as possible, so they'd rather have no solution at all. And those are the same people who wanted to be voted into office for their "strong and stable leadership" and negotiation skills. The mind boggles.
  18. "I want a small land mine because it's AWESOME" might be a good way to relay to US gun owners how the rest of the world sees them indeed. I know guns are fun to use, and I'd never claim they don't have their use or value. I just can't comprehend how that value is put as higher than actual human health or lives. So while guns may be fun and useful, they require responsible ownership and a culture around them that makes clear they are for those purposes only. I'm intimately familiar with Swiss gun culture, having lived in Switzerland for over 20 years. While yes, guns are very widespread compared to other European countries, there's no expectation that they'll ever be used against our own government, or for that matter, other people unless the country gets invaded, which hasn't happened in 200 years. This idea of owning a gun to kill burglars is an insanely disproportionate proposition, and it needs to be considered as such in the US if you guys ever want to reduce the problem.
  19. @Kalbear Incidentally, the idea that owning a murder instrument could possibly be considered a greater good than saving human lives is absolutely staggering to this Eurocommie.
  20. What Krugman is saying, in laymn's terms, is that corporate tax rate decreases are usually almost neutralized by corresponding exchange rate increases. Not quite perfectly, and this self-corrects over the course of a decade or three, but there's no appreciable short- or medium-term benefit to the economy (while, of course, depriving the government of revenue it needs to rase some way or another) (Please correct me if I got this wrong, OGE. I only had econ 101 back at university, even if I got an A...)
  21. Logarithmic scales are absolutely appropriate for values that will always be positive (imagine a negative exchange rate or value of money...) and that have values spanning several orders of magnitude (think US-baht exchange rate. Or US-Turkish Lira. Or...)
  22. I disagree, for two reasons. Empirically, restrictions obviously worked in Australia. I see no reason why they shouldn't in the US. And theoretically, while restrictions may not immediately lead to a change in American gun culture away from the current fetishization, in the long term they will.
  23. @SerHaHa Why should we make it easier for people to kill themselves impulsively? More than 1% of gun owners die in such suicide attempts, and they'd be safer without guns. Disclaimer: I'm not against people deciding that they want to go, but I want it to be a well-considered decision. Just going down that path because of short-term desperation is not something that we should make easier.
  24. You're obfuscating. Around 2% of gun owners in the US turn out to kill someone using their gun. That may be a tiny minority, but it's still far too high a number. And it's higher than your 1%. Yes, that person they turn out to kill is often themselves - but I've been suicidal before, as a result of massive bullying and depression. I didn't succeed back then, and I'm happy about that. With a gun readily available, my chances of "success" would have been higher. Also, use is not only determined by the user. Or rather, a tool restricts the uses it can have through its design. I can't use a rubber tire to hang a painting, for that I need a nail or screw. So, we ave to see what morally permissible uses an object has, and how bad the misuse of said object for such purposes would be. And rapid-fire, numerous-ammo guns have little purpose beyond killing things, particularly humans, which is about the worst kind of misuse happening. So there should be extra scrutiny on guns, not minimal one.
  25. Also, by your post @Mother Cocanuts, 1% of all deaths in the US are due to firearms. So, on average, almost every 40th gun owner poses a threat to the people around him or her. That's a scary high number, all things considered.