Difference between revisions of "2009-05-31 Why do people persist in voting Republican/woozle/2009"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(refinement on abortion; numbering of rounds, to help keep things straight; fixed indenting irregularities) |
(→Gun Ownership: saving work; not done, have to go out.) |
||
| Line 359: | Line 359: | ||
I agree with your solutions overall, though I don't see why you would remove the right of gay/mixed-race/etc. couples to adopt regardless of state. What happens if such a couple adopts in one state and then moves (for reasons of employment, say) to a state where their adoption isn't recognized. Will they be treated fairly in that state? I doubt it. | I agree with your solutions overall, though I don't see why you would remove the right of gay/mixed-race/etc. couples to adopt regardless of state. What happens if such a couple adopts in one state and then moves (for reasons of employment, say) to a state where their adoption isn't recognized. Will they be treated fairly in that state? I doubt it. | ||
====Gun Ownership==== | ====Gun Ownership==== | ||
| + | : [M] ''"When the police are not obligated to protect anyone ([[wikipedia:Castle Rock v. Gonzales|Castle Rock v. Gonzales]])..."'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | If this is the case, then what is the point of having police? | ||
| + | |||
| + | That decision was evil, reinforcing my opinion of [[Antonin Scalia|Scalia]] as a religious hypocrite: | ||
| + | * If the police cannot enforce a restraining order, then legislators need to provide some protection which ''can'' be enforced -- not just say "oh well, you're on your own, sorry about your murdered kids". | ||
| + | * Why are you not more upset about this decision than about aborted fetuses? Those kids actually ''were'' murdered, and a (conservative) Federal judge said it was okay. It hardly seems very "pro-life". | ||
| + | |||
| + | I also have to ask: why ''couldn't'' the police enforce a restraining order? If it was lack of funds, then the police need to be better funded. If it was that enforcement puts officers in too much danger, then perhaps the abuser should be restrained some other way. It is supposed to be their job to protect the innocent from the violent. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If a court takes away their obligation to do this and then the gun lobby argues that we all need more guns as a consequence, this is morally equivalent to saying that a city doesn't need to maintain its roads, and we should all just buy tanks to get around in. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This is not a direction I want to see America go in; it is a movement ''away'' from civil society and towards lawlessness. | ||
| + | |||
* I have never owned one, and never felt the need to own one. I do not know anyone who owns one (that I know of). My closest experience with firearms growing up was an air-powered pellet gun my father used to scare away stray dogs. | * I have never owned one, and never felt the need to own one. I do not know anyone who owns one (that I know of). My closest experience with firearms growing up was an air-powered pellet gun my father used to scare away stray dogs. | ||
| − | * Note that I did not say it was ''always'' unnecessary, just ''largely'' unnecessary -- as in "most people will never need or want one". I did, if you will recall, concede "that in some parts of the country they may be necessary", and also "I dislike the principle of banning personal ownership of any class of goods", so I do favor retaining the basic right to own them. I just think the NRA goes overboard | + | * Note that I did not say it was ''always'' unnecessary, just ''largely'' unnecessary -- as in "most people will never need or want one". I did, if you will recall, concede "that in some parts of the country they may be necessary", and also "I dislike the principle of banning personal ownership of any class of goods", so I do favor retaining the basic right to own them. |
| + | |||
| + | I just (a) think the NRA goes overboard when it demands the right to own things like assault weapons, tries to reduce or eliminate waiting periods and background checks, and other measures which seem more aimed at demonstrating their political power than at helping people to legitimately protect themselves, and (b) see other protections as being far more vital, and (c) the same people who are pro-gun seem to be among those who ignore (at best) or actively stomp on those other protections. | ||
| + | |||
| + | To answer the specific cases in which you deem firearm ownership necessary: | ||
| + | : [M] ''"1. Self defense: If someone breaks into your home with a firearm, how can you defend yourself without a firearm?"'' | ||
| + | :* Thinking back on the various break-in incidents I am familiar with personally, in no case was I or anyone else present when the break-in took place; they got in, got what they wanted, and got out again. If I had had a gun, they might have gotten that too. | ||
| + | :* Statistics (which I'm sure you are aware of) show that a gun kept in the home is much more likely to be misused than to be used to repel an attacker. | ||
| + | : [M] ''"2. Recreation: Skeet shooting and many other sports are about the skill of using a firearm."'' | ||
| + | :* Any particular form of recreation is by definition not a necessity. (Recreation in general is necessary, but it isn't necessary for any particular person to indulge in the specific recreational activity of hunting.) I'm not ''against'' recreational hunting, just pointing out that it's not something which should enjoy specific protections any more than owning a boat or a pair of skis should be. Car drivers have to have licenses, and cars are arguably much more of a necessity in many parts of the country than are guns. Guns are ''intended'' to wound or kill a living creature (not necessarily human) -- that is, they wound or kill ''when used properly'', whereas cars are only dangerous as a side-effect of their proper usage; used properly, and in the absence of bad luck, a car does not hurt anyone. The case for gun licensing seems pretty damn clear-cut to me. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :* Did I ever say this? Does any liberal organization argue that guns should be prohibited for hunting purposes? See my concessions, above. | ||
| + | |||
| + | : [M] ''"While the population is growing, and the number of firearm owners, the number of accidental shootings is staying the same."'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | This is good news, if true. Do you have any sources I can put on the reference page I will eventually create for this issue? | ||
| + | |||
| + | From what I hear, though, right-wing violence is up sharply, so I'd like to have more data on this. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | You're shooting yourself in the foot, here. I think keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals -- ''if it were possible'' -- would be a tremendous boon to society. Sure, they would use knives and garrotes and all kinds of ugly weapons I probably don't know about -- but there's still nothing quite as intimidating and dangerous as a gun. | ||
| + | |||
| + | However, we both agree that banning guns is not going to prevent criminals from getting them, and might even make the problem worse. We have to look at all the different ideas which have been tried, and see which ones work best. From what I understand, waiting periods help reduce impulse crimes, and background checks make it harder for criminals to get guns in the first place and easier for police to take them away from criminals. These rules are an inconvenience for legitimate, law-abiding gun owners, but I don't see how they are an infringement of the right to own. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Gun owners who are truly concerned for the public welfare would embrace these laws, knowing that the results will be fewer guns involved or implicated in crimes and deaths. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | That's an interesting example. I propose that part of why it works well in Switzerland is that every male gun owner is required to go through extensive training on the proper use of such weaponry, as such training is surely part of the mandatory military service. I would be in favor of such a requirement for gun-owners in the US. I think it would be highly appropriate if all the money the NRA currently spends on lobbying and advertising were used to defray the personal cost of such training. | ||
| + | |||
| + | : [M] ''"Repeated studies of inmates have shown the top two deterrents to home invasion are armed home owners and dogs."'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ...which does not change the fact that a gun kept in the home is more likely to be the cause of an accidental shooting than it is to be used in repelling a criminal. | ||
| + | |||
| + | : [M] ''"Dianne Feinstein is one example off the top of my head that is insistent on the repeal of the second amendment."'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/07/EDGIV5EQ6B1.DTL As far as I can tell], she was talking about assault weapons. If the 2nd amendment stands in the way of banning assault weapons for personal use (which I don't think it does), then I do have a problem with it. If she really wants to take away ''all'' handguns... that would worry me. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Either way, I'm already no fan of Feinstein's; she was on the side of the media giants in the battle over [[intellectual property]] rights, and that is something that actually matters to me. She may call herself liberal, but I am skeptical... and apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way: {{Wikipedia|Dianne Feinstein}} says "In 2007, activists from within the California Democratic Party made a push to censure Feinstein. The resolution, which cited Feinstein for "ignoring Democratic principles and falling so far below the standard of what we expect of our elected officials" ultimately failed." | ||
| + | |||
| + | : [M] ''"How effective is gun ownership on the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?"'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Some points of clarification, just so you don't mistake what I am saying: | ||
| + | * In order for this to apply, we would have to be talking about an invasion of the US by some outside force. (The US invasion of other countries involves armed soldiers, and nobody is proposing that they shouldn't have weapons.) | ||
| + | * Although I do think such an invasion is extremely unlikely given the US's place in world politics and the ever-deadlier level of weaponry which could be brought to bear by any serious invader, I would never use that as a reason to justify universal disarmament -- because you should always be prepared for the unexpected. | ||
| + | |||
| + | That said... if we were hoping that an armed US citizenry could be of any ''real'' use against invaders, I think we would need a great deal more weaponry -- and I don't think handguns would be much use. We would need the sorts of weapons commonly associated with terrorism, because that is the kind of warfare you have when an armed civilian population attempts to repel military invaders. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Perhaps you weren't aware of this, but that sort of equipment and supplies -- including many with legitimate peacetime uses, such as [[htyp:Red Devil lye|lye]] -- has increasingly been [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/chemistry_pr.html banned or restricted] by the federal government due only to their association with terrorism and drug manufacture. | ||
| + | |||
| + | If you're going to make noise about the government taking away your weapons, I'd start with those -- and [[Citizen disempowerment|I'll join you]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | But hanguns? Feh. If that were all we had to face in Iraq, we would have had peace years ago. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Actually, I'm not sure that weaponry should be the focus, if we want to be serious about US citizens helping to repel invasion. Weapons would be nearly useless. We would need a citizen-controlled, non-central defense infrastructure. If you want to argue for that, I'll support that as well. | ||
| + | |||
| + | A well-armed and empowered citizenry, though, is exactly what the powers-that-be don't want -- which is why they keep us arguing about useless things like handguns. | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Interrupted; saving work. --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 19:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)'' |
===Midian (round 4)=== | ===Midian (round 4)=== | ||