Ok, so it’s the price of doing business. The problem I have is WHY are we in this business? Other countries aren’t. They don’t have to pay this price because they choose to not be in this business.
What is so important about private gun ownership that we are willing to pay the price? Is our society made better by guns?
Why do other countries do things differently than we do? Why do some countries have laxer laws concerning when and where you can smoke, for instance, or the age you can drink, or where and when you can drink, or how drunk you have to be to be considered ‘drunk’? The answer is because they are other countries, who’s citizens have other requirements. That really is the answer. Instead of asking why other countries don’t allow guns, you’d be better served figuring out, as I suggested up thread, figuring out the motivations of your fellow citizens, most of which don’t care what other countries do. The price WE, the people CHOOSE to pay is what we choose collectively. Figure out why we choose to do so and maybe figure out how to change that attitude. Or, you know, keep beating your head against the brick wall and looking at other countries and what they do and lamenting about why we can’t be just like them. We aren’t. They aren’t like us, either. That’s why they aren’t Americans, and we aren’t <insert country of choice here>.
Is our society made better by guns? I don’t know, really. Is our society made better by alcohol? How about tobacco? How about double cheese burgers? What about speed limits over 55 (or 45, or 35)? I don’t think it’s a matter of most folks assessing whether society is made better or worse by our collective decisions. It’s them assessing whether the price we pay is worth the cost. Pretty clearly, in all the cases I just stated the answer, collectively, IN THE US, is ‘yes’. When and if that changes to ‘no’, then things will be different and you probably could get rid of guns/tobacco/alcohol/double cheese burgers (with large fries and trough sized soda)/<insert whatever else our society allows that causes deaths every year>.
I’m not SAYING anything or making an argument. I’m asking you a question. You can tell because my sentence ended with a question mark (?).
So again I ask - Do you mean “The laws I prefer are the ones that at least 5 people on the Supreme Court say are Constitutional”?
It’s a simple yes or no question. Not sure why it’s so hard for you to give a straight forward answer. Actually, I AM sure, but I’d rather you answer it if you would.
I dont like trap questions.
I have already given you a answer.
**The gun laws I prefer are the one that are constitutional.
The restraint on free press laws I prefer are the one that are constitutional.
The laws protecting freedom of religion I prefer are the one that are constitutional.
Hmm, maybe I can shorten this: The laws I prefer are the one that are constitutional. **
If you want to say that only 5 Justices make anything constitutional, then that’s your opinion, not mine, but what’s your point?
The right to self defense. Because there are people in this world who will harm others and a firearm is the “Great Equalizer” that allows one the ability to protect themselves against those who would cause harm.
Wht don’t you ask this lady if firearm ownership is important?
I don’t know if it was you or someone else upthread that made the comment that they wanted a better answer to the question “why do you carry a gun” than “because I can” and here is my response;:
I carry a firearm because I am aware that there are people in this world that wish to harm others. I don’t carry a gun to impose my will on others, rather I do so, so others cannot impose their will on me.
I consider my carry pistol a tool, much like a fire extinguisher. Chances are I’ll never need either during my life. However, if the need arises and I’m in a situation that I need it and dont have it then I’m screwed.
I also carry one because I have 6 police officers in my family and each and every one has advised me and my wife to carry. They have told me that the reality is, the police cannot protect you and you are responsible for the safety of yourself and your family.
Also, you asked is “this the price of doing business” and quite frankly the answer is yes. Keep in mind that this holds true for almost anything you can think of. The price for allowing people to skydive is that each and every year some are going to go splat. We allow citizens to drive cars, and “the price of doing business” is roughly 33,000 dead every year. Unfortunately, life is full of compromises and nothing we do is ever going to be 100% safe.
That’s not what I asked. I asked why WE do what WE do. What do we get for the lives we’re trading in every year?
I also am not interested in discussing alcohol/tobacco/cheeseburgers. While people die from them, they are different than guns, and are a separate issue.
The price we pay is worth the cost is a nonsensical statement. The price you pay for something is not compared to the cost, it’s compared to the benefit you get from that something.
Guns extract a heavy price. The benefits we get from that price should be clearer than they are.
Oh my. I’ll click your link after you’ve Googled “baby killed in gun accident” and clicked on a few dozen of the hits. Or, to approach your fallacy from a different objection, Crime pays! Consider bank robbery as a new career.
Rational people understand the allure of self-defense. I’ve thought of getting a home-defense weapon myself. But one of the main reasons to have a gun for defense is the ubiquity of guns in America. To help us understand American thinking, please fill out the following questionaire:
Would you prefer to live in a country where
A. You feel safe walking urban streets at night.
B. You are afraid to leave your house at night without a gun.
According to this webpage, killings of police officers are more than ten times higher in the U.S. than in other countries. All else equal, would you prefer a society where
A. Police officers are relatively safe when on duty.
B. Police officers are in frequent fear for their lives.
According to this webpage, U.S. police kill 458 civilians annually; compared with Germany 8; Japan 0; Britain 0. All other things being equal would you prefer to live in a country where
A. The killings by police officer are over 400 annually.
B. The killings by police officer are closer to zero.
Should a police officer shoot a civilian with deadly force if (See Note below)
A. There is at least a 20% chance that deadly force is about to be used against the officer.
B. There is at least a 5% chance that deadly force is about to be used against the officer.
C. There is at least a 1% chance that deadly force is about to be used against the officer.
D. There is at least a 0.1% chance that deadly force is about to be used against the officer.
E. There is at least a 0.01% chance that deadly force is about to be used against the officer.
F. Whenever he judges that an enquiry board will find the kill to be a “good kill.”
(Note: Obviously an officer cannot be expected to assess the chances on the spur of the moment. The real question is about training. Are training programs and testing based on realistic probabilities?)
Jesus Christ . . .the JAQ, the counter-JAQ, the counter-counter-JAQ. We’ve stumbled into some twisted quiz show.
Then you aren’t interested in a real answer, so I’ll let you go ahead and keep bashing your head against the wall. See, they ARE related. They are certainly separate issues, but they are related in the fact that, collectively we allow them and collectively, we accept the price in lives they will cost our society. And they are related in how, as a society we could or would deal with them, and in fact have dealt with them in the past, and moving forward will deal with them in the future.
Again, you clearly don’t get it, and, frankly, you don’t want to. You also don’t seem to understand how the real world works. What’s the ‘benefit’ that society gets out of tobacco use? What’s the ‘benefit’ society gets out of alcohol? Oh, that’s right…you don’t want to discuss and aren’t interested in those because reasons.
No, they don’t. Not in comparison to the things you aren’t interested in discussing, and not in terms of what society is willing to pay. The ‘benefits’ are basically in the eyes of the beholder and are subjective, not objective. To YOU there are either no ‘benefits’ or they don’t outweigh the costs, but many, many of your fellow citizens would disagree. To a non-smoker or someone who doesn’t use tobacco in any form, the cost clearly outweighs the non-benefits. To a non-drinker, the costs of alcohol clearly outweigh the price we pay. Sadly for you, and the others who might be opposed to the other things you aren’t interested in, collectively we have decided, to this point, that all of those things will be available to the general public. We have tried, over time, to mitigate the impact of that…and, we have succeeded in that less people die per capita from all those things than in the past. But by allowing them at all you accept that some people will die. You don’t want to hear that or understand, so you keep tilting at that ‘fix’ windmill, Don. Good luck with that.
It’s not a trap question. Not so surprising you don’t want to answer it though.
I imagine that if some future Supreme Court said “The law outlawing private ownership of handguns is Constitutional” you would not, in fact, favor that law.
Wow, you carry a fire extinguisher around with you?
I have one in my car and one in my kitchen. How about you?
Maybe one of them fellow citizens can tell me what those benefits are besides “protect myself from criminals with guns”.
I believe several already have. You seem to have paid as much attention to what they said (in this thread and in the myriad ones in the past) as you have to what I’ve said, however…which isn’t a lot. You kept asking me questions that I answered then asked me again in a way that suggested I never answered them. Just a thought, but perhaps actually listen to what people say. You don’t have to agree…it’s certain you won’t, in fact…but it would be nice if you at least took the time to listen and absorb the fact someone has answered you, regardless of whether you agree with the answer or not.
The short answer is, people have all sorts of things they could consider a ‘benefit’ to having a gun. But those answers are subjective, and YOU will almost certainly not see it that way. shrug That’s life.
That is, in fact, a valid answer. That it is one you don’t like and refuse to accept is of no importance. You’ve asked and been answered many times.
Tobacco kills 500000 Americans a year, more than ten times the number guns kill. 50000 of them are non-smokers from second hand smoke.
Smoking extracts a heavy price. The benefits we get from that price are zero.
When they do, I will let you know. It is so unlikely this is a “what happens if martians land” hypothetical.
In some areas hunting for food. Shooting is a Olympic sport. Cowboy action shooting is a fun activity.
[ul]
[li]Protect myself from criminals with knives[/li][li]Protect myself from criminals who are bigger than me[/li][li]Protect my family from criminals with guns[/li][li]Protect my family from criminals with knives[/li][li]Protect my family from criminals who are bigger than they are[/li][/ul]Also hunting, target shooting, and as collectibles.
Regards,
Shodan
A dog will do the same thing.