Reply to Re: My opinion on the school shootings in the US
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
those who went in well-prepared, but got lost and was separated from any help would have to attain food somehow.
Going into the wilderness like that is like going to space in several ways. First, there are dangers that are unavoidable, meaning you can die there. That's a risk you take. Second, almost nobody does it. I think I have seen two astronauts in real life, and zero people who go into the jungle in the way you describe.
From a law makers perspective, both these points are important. Allowing pretty much everybody to own a gun causes tens of dead people every day, including people who didn't choose to be in danger (by which I mean they don't own a gun themselves). If guns are outlawed, the number of people getting killed in the jungle per _year_ would probably be near zero. The fraction of those which would have been saved if they had had a gun is likely small as well, taking the total number of saved people by allowing them to carry guns possibly below 10 per century (which is just a guesstimate not based on anything but the above analysis).
If you're a law maker and you have to choose between saving 10 people per century, or 30 per day, the choice really shouldn't be hard.
Skull writes:
Dude, where do you live? The ducking medieval times?!
As you can read in the text above, I agree with your opinion, but can you please calm down and keep it civil? Nobody is changing their opinion based on posts like these, except perhaps their opinion of you. When I first got here, I was confused by you; you talked like a total troll, but you were active and made useful contributions; a rare combination. You have moved to talk normally as well, which was a welcome change. But this looks a lot like your old style. I urge you to stop that.
And still the biggest problem here is that Kris thinks guns are cool. Just like every American thinks to a certain extent. [...] I'm just stating facts.
No, you're not. You decided that this is a fact; don't give any evidence for it, and explicitly ignore anything people say to the contrary.
About Kris I think you are right; the fact that he can understand someone putting a gun in his living room for display proves it, I think.[1] But every American, no. I'm now in the US, working on 3-D printers, and as such printing guns has been the topic of discussion several times. I have met several people who find it as crazy as I do that this is something you want to print, let alone it being the first thing you want to print.
1. After this statement came a statement along the lines of "unbelievable!" from you, but Kris did not even understand what you thought was unbelievable; I was surprised by that.
On the other hand, I know people in the Netherlands who do think guns are cool. One of those actually has a permit to own them for reenactment purposes, and he has a collection. However, he also knows that if anybody gets killed by a reenactment weapon anywhere in the country, his permit is likely to be revoked. That makes all reenacters extremely sensitive to safety issues.
The fact that it takes more than a minute of uninterrupted work to get such a gun loaded means they cannot be used in a rage. Also, they don't use bullets for reenactment, only powder. Such a gun loaded with powder is still very dangerous, but only at short range.
Quiztis writes:
I'm on the American side here, they seem know their country the best.
That is a very good point. IMO the people who live in the US should be the ones to decide on what they do. They do not have to obligation to explain themselves. I don't want Americans telling us we can't legalize abortion, and likewise I don't want to tell them that they can't legalize weapons. But I can have a discussion about it with them, if they are willing to have it as well.
But you are right; in the end, the Americans get to decide what happens to America, and that is a good thing.
Going into the wilderness like that is like going to space in several ways. First, there are dangers that are unavoidable, meaning you can die there. That's a risk you take. Second, almost nobody does it. I think I have seen two astronauts in real life, and zero people who go into the jungle in the way you describe.
From a law makers perspective, both these points are important. Allowing pretty much everybody to own a gun causes tens of dead people every day, including people who didn't choose to be in danger (by which I mean they don't own a gun themselves). If guns are outlawed, the number of people getting killed in the jungle per _year_ would probably be near zero. The fraction of those which would have been saved if they had had a gun is likely small as well, taking the total number of saved people by allowing them to carry guns possibly below 10 per century (which is just a guesstimate not based on anything but the above analysis).
If you're a law maker and you have to choose between saving 10 people per century, or 30 per day, the choice really shouldn't be hard.
Skull writes:
Dude, where do you live? The ducking medieval times?!
As you can read in the text above, I agree with your opinion, but can you please calm down and keep it civil? Nobody is changing their opinion based on posts like these, except perhaps their opinion of you. When I first got here, I was confused by you; you talked like a total troll, but you were active and made useful contributions; a rare combination. You have moved to talk normally as well, which was a welcome change. But this looks a lot like your old style. I urge you to stop that.
And still the biggest problem here is that Kris thinks guns are cool. Just like every American thinks to a certain extent. [...] I'm just stating facts.
No, you're not. You decided that this is a fact; don't give any evidence for it, and explicitly ignore anything people say to the contrary.
About Kris I think you are right; the fact that he can understand someone putting a gun in his living room for display proves it, I think.[1] But every American, no. I'm now in the US, working on 3-D printers, and as such printing guns has been the topic of discussion several times. I have met several people who find it as crazy as I do that this is something you want to print, let alone it being the first thing you want to print.
1. After this statement came a statement along the lines of "unbelievable!" from you, but Kris did not even understand what you thought was unbelievable; I was surprised by that.
On the other hand, I know people in the Netherlands who do think guns are cool. One of those actually has a permit to own them for reenactment purposes, and he has a collection. However, he also knows that if anybody gets killed by a reenactment weapon anywhere in the country, his permit is likely to be revoked. That makes all reenacters extremely sensitive to safety issues.
The fact that it takes more than a minute of uninterrupted work to get such a gun loaded means they cannot be used in a rage. Also, they don't use bullets for reenactment, only powder. Such a gun loaded with powder is still very dangerous, but only at short range.
Quiztis writes:
I'm on the American side here, they seem know their country the best.
That is a very good point. IMO the people who live in the US should be the ones to decide on what they do. They do not have to obligation to explain themselves. I don't want Americans telling us we can't legalize abortion, and likewise I don't want to tell them that they can't legalize weapons. But I can have a discussion about it with them, if they are willing to have it as well.
But you are right; in the end, the Americans get to decide what happens to America, and that is a good thing.
