Originally posted by Surtur
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.
]
Originally posted by Surtur
And sure, the legislation you're talking about sounds nice. [/B]
Originally posted by Robtard
You want to tell the family of those two dead people that they just weren't worth it?
If that family has 2 dead people because of an accidental discharge of a gun whose probability of accidentally discharging that gun could have been prevented with a silly law, by somewhere between .00001% and 1%, yeah, for sure. I'd look at why the accident actually occurred and see if there was a way to prevent that accident with something actually relevant.
Such as...the 2 year old girl who shot and killed herself because a handgun was left out on the table instead of locked away. And there was a law in place for that which resulted in the parents getting into trouble.
The only way to have truly prevented that from happening is implementing Jaden's idea (not his idea, actually) of requiring biometric technologies be used so that unauthorized people could not use the weapon. That would prevent almost every single one of those accidental gun deaths, for sure.
Originally posted by Robtard
Your non sequitur aside because that's all you can do now, who is saying people here can't be helped because of refugees? Weird.
I'm saying focus on people here first. That is what I care about.
Guarantee me none of the refugees will take the life of an American. We'll talk. Otherwise nah, we already have enough crime, enough mouths to feed, etc.
Maybe they can go to Germany, I hear they love welcoming people in.
Originally posted by Surtur
I'm saying focus on people here first. That is what I care about.Guarantee me none of the refugees will take the life of an American. We'll talk. Otherwise nah, we already have enough crime, enough mouths to feed, etc.
Maybe they can go to Germany, I hear they love welcoming people in.
Okay.
Why is it worse when an immigrant kills than when an American kills? Is "but hey, at least your loved one was murdered by an American" really a consolation to another American? I understand it is in Surtland, but explain why to me. Sidenote: Do you know the statistics of American on American murders to Immigrant on American murders?
Germany looks lovely, imo. I only did a driveby in early 2000, wish I had more time.
Originally posted by Robtard
Okay.Why is it worse when an immigrant kills than when an American kills? Is "but hey, at least your loved one was murdered by an American" really a consolation to another American? I understand it is in Surtland, but explain why to me. Sidenote: Do you know the statics of American on American murders to Immigrant on American murders?
Germany looks lovely, imo.
We already have killers here. No need to add more. That is my position.
Originally posted by dadudemon
If that family has 2 dead people because of an accidental discharge of a gun whose probability of accidentally discharging that gun could have been prevented with a silly law, by somewhere between .00001% and 1%, yeah, for sure. I'd look at why the accident actually occurred and see if there was a way to prevent that accident with something actually relevant.Such as...the 2 year old girl who shot and killed herself because a handgun was left out on the table instead of locked away. And there was a law in place for that which resulted in the parents getting into trouble.
The only way to have truly prevented that from happening is implementing Jaden's idea (not his idea, actually) of requiring biometric technologies be used so that unauthorized people could not use the weapon. That would prevent almost every single one of those accidental gun deaths, for sure.
Some people don't actually care about saving lives, they just hate guns and so are trying to get rid of them using a variation of "death by a thousand cuts" tactic.
Originally posted by Robtard
Okay.Why is it worse when an immigrant kills than when an American kills?
Well, for one, based on Rockydonovang's ideas, preventing even .00001% of gun deaths is an effective gun death prevention measure. So preventing immigrants from using guns to kill americans, legal or illegal, would be an effective use our our time, people, resources, and money.
And as you put it, would you tell that to the faces of the family of 2 dead people?
Obviously, I don't buy into either argument.
I'm much more realistic. Let's find (studies which probably already exist) the largest categories of violence and homicides. Determine (studies) what it would cost and how much time it would take to mitigate gun deaths in the top 1-5 categories. Determine budget. And set a deadline. Manage to meet those objectives based on the previously set timeline.
Seems like the most cost effective and time effective use of resources and people, right?
Obviously, my outline is extremely simple but it is how policies, regulations and laws should be made. All of them.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not correct. I named the downsides. 👆
I'm not sure where you're getting millions of taxpayer money being wasted from either.
So what's wrong with telling people that they need to undergo the legal process other people have to go through?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, for one, based on Rockydonovang's ideas, preventing even .00001% of gun deaths is an effective gun death prevention measure. So preventing immigrants from using guns to kill americans, legal or illegal, would be an effective use our our time, people, resources, and money.And as you put it, would you tell that to the faces of the family of 2 dead people?
Obviously, I don't buy into either argument.
I'm much more realistic. Let's find (studies which probably already exist) the largest categories of violence and homicides. Determine (studies) what it would cost and how much time it would take to mitigate gun deaths in the top 1-5 categories. Determine budget. And set a deadline. Manage to meet those objectives based on the previously set timeline.
Seems like the most cost effective and time effective use of resources and people, right?
Obviously, my outline is extremely simple but it is how policies, regulations and laws should be made. All of them.
This is why it makes no sense lol. Did we enter the Twilight Zone? They care about the 1-2 now. They do not care when it's victims of terror attacks or victims of illegal immigrants. Then it is "well most of them are good people". They sell this bullshit about the travel ban and say nobody has died, huge asterisk: people have been attacked by people from those places, whoops.
And yup, 99% of gun owners are good people.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Yeah, the upside not being very big isn't really a downside.
The upside, obviously, being "not those things you want to do."
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I'm not sure where you're getting millions of taxpayer money being wasted from either.
Oh, looks like you are unaware that regulations on hundreds of millions of endpoints has a direct cost associated with it. There's creation, discussion, debate, draft, approval, implementation, execution, administration, penalization, adjudication, incarceration (if you wanted it to go that far), and systematic review. All of those elements cost money. A very deep reaching new gun regulation will directly cost law abiding citizens, at a minimum, hundreds of millions of dollars. However, "trust cost of ownership" is likely in the billions of dollars for the law abiding US residents for something like this. Even more likely, it will cost tens of billions of dollars in things such as tax payer money, in just 10-20 years. You want to spend that much money wasting people's time with an ineffective regulation on people who were law abiding citizens, anyway.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
So what's wrong with telling people that they need to undergo the legal process other people have to go through?
I know you're not this naive and I know you don't think it is this simple. So why even ask such a silly question?
Here's the problem, you're trying to apply the downside caused by Trump's policy as a substitute for the non existent downside present in the policy I suggested.
Whether or not you think those 100,000 refugees are enough of a downside to justify a few americans being attacked is your business.
It's just not relevant to the policy I'm suggesting.
edit: that was to surt, I'll respond to dd now
Originally posted by dadudemon
You're wrong. It is past six sigma. Hundreds of millions of guns. Almost none of them used for bad.
Lol...and it would be almost hilarious to point out the instances of defensive gun uses vs the deaths caused.
What would you say the low estimate is for the defensive uses of firearms, per year?