The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Ton · January 19, 2018, 10:01 AM

The simple answer is that you cannot punish people for crimes they have not committed. Aside from the extremely mentally disabled, there is no possible way you could ethically restrict somebody's freedoms who has no criminal history.

As far as the terrorist thing goes, we all already know the end of this story. For somebody who is sitting at home developing plans to murder multiple people, laws are a speed bump, not a road block. Weapons are always available. If firearms are too hard to come by, rental commercial vehicles, explosives, poisons, etc are always good as backups.

And finally on the issue of U.S. Gun violence, I've always shaken my head at the one HUGE fact that nobody seems to ever connect the dots on. Approximately 2/3 of all of the gun related deaths in the U.S. are suicides. The suicide rate in the U.S. is not significantly higher than other countries with restrictive guns laws. There are countries with extremely restrictive guns laws that have 2x the suicide rate of the U.S. However, in these countries, because firearms are less available, people tend to use other methods (hanging, railroad tracks, jumping). What we can conclude from this is that people who want to kill themselves will find a way to do it, and the availability of firearms is not a significant factor. So if you cut the suicides and only focus on the homicides, the realistic number is about 3.5/100,000 people. I'm going to go out on a limb and say based on my experience as an LEO that gang and drug related violence make up a large chunk of those incidents, but even if we take that number alone, you're still 3x more likely to die in a car accident than be shot to death. Don't even get me started on cancer and heart related deaths in comparison.

So back to the original question: We don't, we can't, and we shouldn't attempt to make major changes that restrict the freedom of every citizen based on isolated incidents with no rhyme or reason. Tragedies will occur. It's part of being a human in civilization. My best advice to somebody who wanted to protect themselves against the threats in the world? Take care of your body and your mind. Encourage those around you to follow suit. Buy a car with good crash test ratings. Lock your home and vehicle doors. Don't use unnecessary drugs. Don't affiliate with gangs. Don't commit crime. Restrict any affiliations you have with those who do. And finally, develop the abilities necessary to protect yourself from immediate physical threats.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

January 19, 2018, 10:01 AM	#34
Ton Member Join Date: January 7, 2014 Posts: 85	The simple answer is that you cannot punish people for crimes they have not committed. Aside from the extremely mentally disabled, there is no possible way you could ethically restrict somebody's freedoms who has no criminal history. As far as the terrorist thing goes, we all already know the end of this story. For somebody who is sitting at home developing plans to murder multiple people, laws are a speed bump, not a road block. Weapons are always available. If firearms are too hard to come by, rental commercial vehicles, explosives, poisons, etc are always good as backups. And finally on the issue of U.S. Gun violence, I've always shaken my head at the one HUGE fact that nobody seems to ever connect the dots on. Approximately 2/3 of all of the gun related deaths in the U.S. are suicides. The suicide rate in the U.S. is not significantly higher than other countries with restrictive guns laws. There are countries with extremely restrictive guns laws that have 2x the suicide rate of the U.S. However, in these countries, because firearms are less available, people tend to use other methods (hanging, railroad tracks, jumping). What we can conclude from this is that people who want to kill themselves will find a way to do it, and the availability of firearms is not a significant factor. So if you cut the suicides and only focus on the homicides, the realistic number is about 3.5/100,000 people. I'm going to go out on a limb and say based on my experience as an LEO that gang and drug related violence make up a large chunk of those incidents, but even if we take that number alone, you're still 3x more likely to die in a car accident than be shot to death. Don't even get me started on cancer and heart related deaths in comparison. So back to the original question: We don't, we can't, and we shouldn't attempt to make major changes that restrict the freedom of every citizen based on isolated incidents with no rhyme or reason. Tragedies will occur. It's part of being a human in civilization. My best advice to somebody who wanted to protect themselves against the threats in the world? Take care of your body and your mind. Encourage those around you to follow suit. Buy a car with good crash test ratings. Lock your home and vehicle doors. Don't use unnecessary drugs. Don't affiliate with gangs. Don't commit crime. Restrict any affiliations you have with those who do. And finally, develop the abilities necessary to protect yourself from immediate physical threats. Just my thoughts on the matter.