Originally posted by Robtard
So saving some lives isn't that important. Gotcha and cool, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Just please remember this the next time you go on another "but I care about lives" spiel. Thanks in advance.
No, saving some lives is important. I want you to apply this logic across the board though.
Think about what you are saying. It's worth it even if it saves a few lives. What other issues could this be applied to?
Originally posted by Surtur
Think about what you are saying. It's worth it even if it saves a few lives. What other issues could this be applied to?
Policy needs to be decided case by case based on upside and downsides, not "across the board".
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Not issues where there's an actual downside to saving those few lives aside from "the families of gun owners should get preferential treatment under the law!".Policy needs to be decided case by case based on upside and downsides, not "across the board".
I see. Convenient. So the travel ban thing, if that saves a few lives of Americans, it doesn't matter?
Travel ban, yay or nay?
Originally posted by Robtard
Apples to oranges, unless you actually want to compare a gun to a Muslim as being the same? You probably do, knowing you.
Would you want to tell the family of the dead people they just weren't worth it? That because people from other countries want better lives, they just need to bite the bullet?
Originally posted by Surtur
If Trumps travel ban saves 1 life, worth it? Yay or nay?
So the travel ban thing, if that saves a few lives of Americans, it doesn't matter?
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
It doesn't save any lives though...As no refugee from said countries has killed Americans, there's no basis to say it saves any lives. On the other hand, we know it prevents many people from getting refuge their lives may depend on and it also promotes discrimination which is ironically enough, also what people who don't want people to need background checks to be passed a gun are supporting.
Actually, people from those countries have tried lol. They just failed.
Why should we wait around until they succeed?
Politifact rates it half true. Next.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
the question is, "worth what?"And in the case of the refugee ban, as no people have been killed by refugees from the banned countries, the question is "what people?"
Have people been attacked? Yes or no? Not killed. attacked.
Do we wait around until they succeed, Rocky? What will you say to the parents of that person?
Originally posted by Surtur
Actually, people from those countries have tried lol. They just failed.Why should we wait around until they succeed?
On the other hand, we know it prevents many people from getting refuge their lives may depend on and it also promotes discrimination which is ironically enough, also what people who don't want people to need background checks to be passed a gun are supporting.
Now explain to me the downside of telling people related to gun owners they have to go through the same legislative process as those who aren't related to gun owners.
Originally posted by Surtur
I care about Americans. Next.
Also Surt, since you're trying to equate discriminating against refugees with not discriminating against people not related to gun owners:
explain to me the downside of telling people related to gun owners they have to go through the same legislative process as those who aren't related to gun owners.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
👆 👆 👆You're meddling in people's liberty through constricting their actions, meddling with their property rights both in restricting what they can do with their own property and through the taxpayer money needed to enforce this, and I don't think what's being suggested has a proven enough security for people's lives (denting the gun death statistic at 4.5% at the unrealistic most assuming it was perfectly enforced, and in all likelihood substantially less than that) to actually justify this.
It would affect a very small percentage of that 4.5%, all of those gun related deaths would not go away with what he's suggesting.
I don't just care about Americans, I just care about them more. No, refugees are not more important than people here. If 100,000 would come in and only 1 would murder one of our citizens, none of those 100,000 should be let in. If you disagree, volunteer to be the one who informs the family of that 1 dead American. Explain to them why, show them how virtuous you are.
And sure, the legislation you're talking about sounds nice.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
It reducing crime at all would render it effective.Addressed here:
There's no principle based defense for alowing certain people to bypass laws others have to undergo thanks to nepotism.
You haven't addressed any of those points at all other than a "yes it will" to my point about it being almost no effect. A "yes it will" is not a proper response. If someone told me we have a massive issue with a certain chemical in our plastics that kills 505 people, annually, and they had a solution that would affect millions, cost millions to billions, and would save 5 accidental deaths out of those millions, and they smugly crossed their arms and smiled at me in triumph, I'd wonder about their sanity.
And your last point is directly irrelevant. Who cares about that, dude? We're talking about more rights being taken away just to provide no additional benefit at the cost of inconvenience and most to already law abiding citizens. You're going after the wrong people.