Real-world sensitivities and game names

[Leif_-]

Atreides said:
Zeldor, I just wanted to take a moment to respond to this statement because I found it pretty confusing.[...]

Personally, I'm deeply and griveously offended by your hatred for paragraph breaks.

[Atreides]

Leif_- said:

Personally, I'm deeply and griveously offended by your hatred for paragraph breaks.

To borrow from Family Guy, I can't help it. Paragraph breaks killed my father... and raped my mother.

[Agema]

I would prefer not to debate gun control.

However, if I can continue it's use in relation to liberty. To take your car example, you need a licence to drive, because cars are dangerous. In that sense, you do not have liberty to just drive a car, it is restricted by the state. If you apply similar principles of adequate training to own and use guns, you are supporting a form of gun control.

When liberty potentially endangers others or denies them their own liberty, it is reasonable to restrict it to some degree. There is a balance that needs to be found.

[JimMorrison]

lch said:
Car accidents are an unwanted byproduct of public transportation. "Violence in all forms" sounds like a very active act compared to that.

Well this is a fair assertion, sir. But I was Googling around for a comparison of "death rates", and the first well compiled list that I found did not go to the extreme detail of listing "fatal gunshot wounds", whether accidental or not. I actually thought it was useful to show the relationship in numbers that I found, to illustrate how big a "menace" cars are to innocent people.

Agema said:
I would prefer not to debate gun control.

However, if I can continue it's use in relation to liberty. To take your car example, you need a licence to drive, because cars are dangerous. In that sense, you do not have liberty to just drive a car, it is restricted by the state. If you apply similar principles of adequate training to own and use guns, you are supporting a form of gun control.

When liberty potentially endangers others or denies them their own liberty, it is reasonable to restrict it to some degree. There is a balance that needs to be found.

To be honest, my intent was not to derail this train onto a a Gun Control debate. It was brought up, and I do think it is a perfect example for the larger discussion of civil liberty.

I hardly think that education and licensing are considered by many to be a form of "car control". When the US government uses the word "control" in relation to anything, it implies severe limitation, or partial or total banning. For example, drugs in general are referred to as "controlled substances".

It is becoming increasingly obvious as time passes, that government intervention in personal lives, on the level of "control", is a failure to the common good, and causes more strife on many levels, than a lack of control would cause.

Imagine this: if we maintained the same level of police protection that we "enjoy" now, but decriminalized most things that are difficult to enforce at best - then those police could focus on the one thing that everyone should agree is the worst problem of society - violent crime.

Perhaps if we directed our resources towards making sure that all of our citizens were safe, then we would find that peripheral concepts like gun control would become much more manageable. Chasing after guns, or drugs, or pornography - these are all emotionally charged persecutions that are heavy-handedly executed, causing untold amounts of misery among the people, many of whom are basically innocent - and would remain "more innocent" were they not persecuted unfairly.

To um all of this up, my point was that if you want to live in a 100% gun free neighborhood, for example - then you should be able to mandate that if you and all of your neghbors wish it to be so. However, you and your neighbors should not have any say whatsoever about whether the people in my neighborhood own guns, or what kind of guns, or how we regulate them - that should be for us to decide. The only impact that has on someone from this community, would be if they were traveling, but what kind of idiot travels with a gun without checking on the appropriate local laws?

I hardly doubt that Oregon, as a separate entity, would ever get designs on "invading" one of its neighboring states. I'm reasonably certain that if we focus on making ourselves better people, rather than telling other people how to live their lives, that it won't come to that, either. <3

[chrispedersen]

JimMorrison said:
To um all of this up, my point was that if you want to live in a 100% gun free neighborhood, for example - then you should be able to mandate that if you and all of your neghbors wish it to be so. <3

"Power flows from the mouth of a gun". Mao

Part of the responsibility in a democracy, are the acts required to maintain that democracy.

Our forefathers, having experienced restrictions to the right to bear arms under the Sedition Acts [?], and knowing the problems in overthrowing the british, decided that one of those reponsibilities was that the right to bear arms.

So, no, while you may elect to be gun free, and live with like minded individuals, you cannot mandate that none bear arms.

[thejeff]

But that "100% gun free neighborhood" argument breaks down. If it can be mandated only if everyone agrees, then that's no mandate, that's just no one living there owning a gun. If one person wants to move in and have a gun then suddenly all the neighbors don't agree and it's no longer 100% gun free.
From a more legal point of view, nothing in US law (or any other country I know of) requires 100% approval. So every law imposes on someone.

And it doesn't scale. Neighborhood is vaguely defined. If you define a large enough area then you'll never find one where everyone wants to be gun-free. If you use a small enough scale everyone who wants to lives in a gun-free area, even if it's just their own house.
And easy access to guns in one area, makes it easier for criminals to get weapons for use in the gun-free area.

More largely, you can't divorce gun control from violent crime. Those pro-control will say violent crime often uses guns and thus reducing access is a way to reduce violent crime. Those opposed to gun control often say armed citizens reduce violent crime.

[JimMorrison]

thejeff said:
But that "100% gun free neighborhood" argument breaks down. If it can be mandated only if everyone agrees, then that's no mandate, that's just no one living there owning a gun. If one person wants to move in and have a gun then suddenly all the neighbors don't agree and it's no longer 100% gun free.
From a more legal point of view, nothing in US law (or any other country I know of) requires 100% approval. So every law imposes on someone.

I'm not talking about 100% agreement per se - but jurisdiction. Very few things should be regulated beyond city limits - even fewer across state lines.

If your city decides to be firearm free, then so be it, I won't try to stop you. If I owned a gun (and I likely never will, personally), then obviously I wouldn't want to live there, and if I DID choose to live there, I'd willingly give up my weapon, or I'd be moving to a jail cell instead of that nice condo I had my eye on.


As it stands, since we try to homogenize freedom, we instead dilute and adulterate it with conflicting points of view. If we truly want to prosper, then we need to let people grow up, on their own terms, and make their own rules. As long as they aren't hurting people, then what is the problem? What they do is not the business of someone 1000 miles away, so long as no one's liberties are threatened. That's the thing, any form of overarching "control" on a national level, is merely a pre-emptive restriction of civil liberty. And unfortunately, bringing it back to the gun control point (since Chris went there ), quite possibly an attempt to control people, more than any little thing that is made the issue.

[chrispedersen]

[quote]
JimMorrison said:

thejeff said:
If your city decides to be firearm free, then so be it, I won't try to stop you. If I owned a gun (and I likely never will, personally), then obviously I wouldn't want to live there, and if I DID choose to live there, I'd willingly give up my weapon, or I'd be moving to a jail cell instead of that nice condo I had my eye on.

But thats the whole point Jim. The desire to live in a gun free environment does NOT trump the right to bear arms.

And no city has the right to remove a right that was enshrined in the bill of rights.