U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Today, 12:12 AM
 
Location: SGV
25,064 posts, read 9,769,702 times
Reputation: 9780

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
The innocent people need to be armed, and this crap will quit quickly.
No it won't.

People will still violate the non-aggression principle.

Securing your property rights only means each man gets to decide if he wants to draw his weapon or not when faced with a violator.

That's all you were given in this life when you came in (natural law/anarchy) and it's all you could ever ask for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 12:13 AM
 
29,894 posts, read 15,603,461 times
Reputation: 20230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks View Post
We have greatly increased DUI penalties and have seen auto deaths by DUI plummet in recent years. Sensible regulations do help.

The entire premise of your thread is just a big canard. You live in one of the safest big cities in the US and you feel the need to carry...makes no sense. Don't be so paranoid.

I live in your big bad neighbor to the north (LA) and have NEVER felt the need to carry a weapon.
And still thousands die, so shouldn't we outlaw alchohol or do you think thousands dying each year is acceptable?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:18 AM
 
Location: SGV
25,064 posts, read 9,769,702 times
Reputation: 9780
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
And still thousands die, so shouldn't we outlaw alchohol or do you think thousands dying each year is acceptable?
The problem here is that all statists (ends justify the means folks) base their stances on an acceptable (to them) collateral damage number versus an actual principle.

When I talk about the non-aggression principle that is all I mean: you don't initiate force and you have the natural right to self-defense. That is no guarantee you will make it out alive when the SHTF. It just means you didn't initiate force and when things went crazy you had your full rights of self defense in your pocket.

Life is messy. We don't need pre-ordained violence (statism) in the hopes of preventing future violence. I think history has shown that is neither moral or logical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:20 AM
 
Location: San Diego
5,234 posts, read 1,435,895 times
Reputation: 3760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
Is it time to reduce the deaths of innocent people?


Yes, it certainly is.

In 1791, the Framers decided more people would suffer and die if govt had ANY authority to restrict or take away guns, than if the govt were forbidden to restrict or ban any of them. They put a command into the Constitution saying "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And they even put an explanatory clause before it.

The main reason was to prevent a tyrannical government from abusing its citizens. But George Washington also had the usual domestic criminals to deal with, and some insane people just as we have today, who might randomly kill innocent people. By a gun, or a gunpowder bomb that could blow up an entire building etc. Yet the people of his time knew that it was more dangerous to give govt any power to decide who could own a gun and who couldn't, than to put up with a few nutcases who might hurt or even kill somebody.

And the Framers also knew that the people themselves were a far more effective deterrent to crime, than a hired police force who the criminals could identify by sight and dodge as it suited them when committing crimes.

They provided the most effective means to safeguard the people that has ever been developed, in our world of imperfect people. It is not perfect, since no program can be perfect throughout an entire population. But it can keep more people alive and safe, than any other "solution" offered by blinders-on leftists, then and now.

And the big-govt leftists have been fighting against it tooth and nail, ever since.

To answer your question, yes, it's time to reduce the deaths of innocent people. By trying, at last, the most effective means at hand.
No response from Pedro to this suggestion, even though it's the most effective solution we have.

Looks like Pedro's the one who doesn't want to reduce the deaths of innocent people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:00 AM
 
4,864 posts, read 959,804 times
Reputation: 1983
For centuries, it has been the time to reduce innocent deaths! Now, how do we put some practicality in doing so? We could the best ideas but actually implementing them is even harder!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:48 AM
 
9,456 posts, read 4,331,641 times
Reputation: 11091
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62 View Post
Notice how aggressively they targeted that too though...they were very quick to enact laws against texting while driving, laws that really have bite, texting while driving is a priority stop now in my state (that means, they dont need any other reason to pull you over), thats HUGE!


Plus, there was no negativity from the cell phone industry as a result of these new laws, they just accepted that the laws were here and in place now, they didnt do anything to try to stop them or lessen the severity.


Where are the tough new laws on alcohol use, sales, etc? Do you think the alcohol industry would just accept new laws that resulted in less drinking? LOL
For the longest time they stopped liquor from being advertised on TV and the industry seemed to go along with it. I forget the year, but somewhere along the way they saw all the $$$ that the beer industry was making and questioned the fairness of the law/rule prohibiting them from advertising hard liquor.

As to the overall subject, swimming pools and other things kill more people, but you do not see people running around demanding prohibition of XYZ saying "if only one life could be saved, it would be worth it".
You would have to live in a plastic bubble 24/7/365 as we encounter potential hazards every day of our lives.


`
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top