783
784

"What could go wrong?" (i.imgur.com)

RiverGerding が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]phogan1 -16ポイント-15ポイント  (14子コメント)

So, to keep this in perspective: roughly thirty people were killed, which is roughly the same number as the US daily average for gun-inflicted homicides.

Now, the comparison had some obvious flaws--there are far more people in the US than in Belgium (~30x), and Belgium doesn't have a terrorist attack every day.

But I'm curious: do the people killed by gun violence in the US matter less than those killed by terrorism? Is it simply a cost vs effort problem (we stood up entire massive government agencies to combat terrorism, though, and the CDC is prohibited from studying ways to reduce gun violence, so I don't really buy that)? Is it simply the spectacle that matters--we're willing to go to great lengths to prevent 30 people from being killed all at once in one place, but unwilling to be inconvenienced to prevent one death at a time spread across a month or a state?

What exactly is it about terrorism that convinces people one death is too many, but when it comes to gun violence, speed limits, and various dangerous recreational activities that we aren't even willing to look at ways to prevent deaths?

[–]nowthatsrich 4ポイント5ポイント  (8子コメント)

Do you really not understand the intent behind it? Because while all death is bad, a terrorist attack is the act of premeditated murder to strike fear or "terror" into the masses. It is not simply an attack on an individual, but it is assault on our way of life. That is why just one of these attacks is too many.

[–]devildog25 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Not to mention most of the gun violence in America is either suicide or gang related. It's not like random citizens are being killed. Further more gun violence as a whole has been on the decline for the past two decades

[–]Wensleydale_Gaming 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

They like to lump suicides and accidentals in with murder to make it more of a big deal than what it is.

[–]phogan1 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I intentionally excluded suicides from the numbers I cited--including them would make it every 8 hours rather than every day.

[–]devildog25 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So take out gun violence attributed to gang activity and then look at the numbers. The fact is the rest of the world thinks it's the wild west out here in America and that any regular citizen is in danger of being shot to death. But the fact is that unless you involved in gang activity the likelihood of you being a victim of gun violence is dramatically reduced. Your argument is not very good either. Go ask the leftists why they want to ban "assault weapons" because they have "high capacity" magazines and look like what the military uses. But they are no more dangerous than handguns. They are harder to carry/conceal, fire at the same rate as handguns (one round per one trigger pull), and fire the same type of ammo and in most cases actually fire smaller caliber rounds. Hand guns are responsible for drastically more deaths than ARs. So go ask the democrats who are pushing for AR bans why they aren't pushing for bans on handguns because that is what is killing black Americans. Why are democrats pushing for better mental health care? That would take care of many of these mass shootings. Why is it that only the right is questioned when the left is ignoring the biggest group of people being killed by guns? Why is it that we let the left routinely push out false information about guns in order to push their agenda (I'm looking at you Gifford)?

[–]phogan1 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Same with hate crimes--acts of violence intended to cause fear in a population. But the question wasn't "why is one death too many"; rather, it was: "what is the justification for extreme means to prevent even one death under certain circumstances while refusing any measure to reduce violence in other circumstances". I'm curious--curious, mind you; not arguing for any particular position--about the justification/rationale for going to extreme lengths to prevent violence from terrorism while accepting violence/death from other sources (not just guns; car deaths, seatbelt laws, fireworks laws, etc., could add readily have been the example used).

[–]nowthatsrich [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

i think the other part is that while a hate crime is intended to strike fear into that race, it normally is someone acting by themselves. They don't have a large international syndicate backing them. The mass shootings though I would consider an terror attack and thats why they get national coverage and a response from Obama. As for the other forms of deaths like fireworks, car accident and so on they are not planned out in advanced and are simply accidents. There is a risk involved in everything we do, you could choke on a bone while eating a steak. Death is apart of life, but if you stopping taking every risk you wouldn't really be living anymore.

[–]phogan1 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I completely agree that death is a part of life and you can't avoid all risks; I didn't ask why we don't do everything to avoid all risks. I asked what makes this particular risk--terrorism--justify extreme measures like shutting down immigration and suspension of some civil liberties when other, greater risks elicit little or no response.

The idea that the organisation behind the risk matters is somewhat interesting: the ability to identify a foe to fight, particularly for an "us vs. them" mentality, helps explain the gut reaction many people have.

[–]nowthatsrich [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I also think it happens because it is in outside force. People believe that if you stop immigration, no terrorists can enter the country. The logic may be simplistic, but it is somewhat right. It seems like a simple solution to people. Some of the attacks in Europe have been from refugees who came there illegally. So people make the connection. Whereas if you took away legal guns, no one believes that will stop all gun violence. It probably wouldn't stop the majority of it. How would you collect all of the guns already in circulation? How do you account for illegal firearms?

[–]ultimisConstitutionalist 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Death is a part of life. The death of a human is always troubling, but the context of that death is what matters. If a woman defends herself from bodily harm/death by killing an assaulter, we don't automatically condemn her for the action (well maybe some liberals would).

How many people die each day from car related deaths? How many from heart disease?

Terrorism destabilizes society and culture. But it's more than just that. It's an direct attack on our values as a society. The founding fathers were willing to fight and die and kill for these values and beliefs. They didn't just say "Well too many people will die, let's not bother".

[–]phogan1 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

But that strikes to the heart of what I was asking: why not do more, even if it involves greater government interference in our lives (such as seatbelt laws or incentives to get a yearly physical--or research into ways to prevent/reduce gun violence) if life is so valuable that we go to any means to protect it from terrorism? Or, conversely: why not reduce government interference even in terrorism-related cases (trim/abolish the TSA, cut the military, and/or reduce the government's surveillance/detainment authority) if personal freedoms are so valuable as to sacrafice security?

Understand, I'm not currently arguing for or against any particular gun control or anti-terrorism measure, or even for or against immigration/refugees; I'm simply asking how apparently conflicting values are reconciled.

[–]meson_ray 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

inconvenienced

I am not sure I'd characterize giving up the constitutional right to defend myself an 'inconvenience'.

[–]phogan1 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Who said "give up the right to defend yourself"? I asked about any restriction/delay/rethinking regarding gun ownership (even simply requiring a level of gun safety training prior to purchase), or even just allowing the CDC to investigate ways to reduce gun violence (which may or may not include proposals to restrict gun ownership). I never mentioned, much less suggested, any proposal to keep people from defending themselves; I asked a simple question of any extreme measures should be used to pervert some violent deaths but no measures should be used to prevent others.