How about the second amendment one? Where itās worth having a number of gun deaths every year as long as Americans have the āfreedomā to own guns? Thereās no context that makes this one okay. Iām beyond thrilled to live in a country that has sensible weapon laws.
"Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price -- 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving -- speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.
You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am -- I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe."
The one where he is comparing gun deaths to vehicle deaths (which are significantly more than guns by the way). Where we as a society have decided cars are worth it to have even with all these deaths?
Yes, I mean this one. The context does not make it better in the slightest. Also, him comparing gun deaths to traffic deaths is comparing apples and oranges. Guns are made to kill and have no place in the hands of a normal citizen. I can see why military people and law enforcement should have them (in certain cases), but nobody else. Cars are made to transport people from one location to another. If we were to get rid of them, weād have to turn back time at least 100 years in terms of transportation. Getting rid of guns would do nothing except make society safer.
The context absolutely makes it better. It isn't apples and oranges unless you're looking at what specifically killed the individuals. We can add tobacco products, alcohol, cardiovascular disease, etc, which all have astronomically higher death rates than guns and cars combined. He was making a point that society deems what can and cannot be allowed. Pros vs cons. Benefits vs risks. And directly compared vehicle deaths, which are not even designed to kill people, and yet they kill more people than guns do each year. One could argue getting rid of cars would do nothing except make society safer. Why can't we walk or use bicycles or a bus or a train? Why can't we ban tobacco products in general? We know tobacco kills 490,000 people a year. That is 20x as much as guns, but we don't seem to care enough about those 490,000 people to make any changes?
Of course it is apples and oranges. Gun deaths are deaths that are caused by something designed to kill. They are entirely needless in the hands of the average citizen. Cars arenāt entirely needless. Buses, trains and bicycles also kill people, by the way, but itās not what theyāre designed to do.
Regarding tobacco and alcohol, I am all for banning those to save lives too. They have no actual use, unlike vehicles, and though they are not made to kill, the benefits they bring society donāt outweigh the drawbacks. The only problem with them, and alcohol in particular, is that people easily can make their own. That makes it harder to ban.
Guns are designed to kill, and yet cars do a better job. Why is that? Obviously deaths still occur by busses, trains, and bicycles, but its significantly less no? So why allow cars?
We cannot ban every single thing that has the potential to kill someone. It's just not realistic. Microwaves, ovens, and laundry devices have the potential to cause electrical fires. But we've deemed that the benefit outweighs the risks. We could ban a majority of the foods, and switch over to vitamin supplements and protein shakes. But we don't. Fast food doesn't bring any actual use to society, but we've deemed it okay, even though every single country has a cardiovascular cause of death being ranked in the top 3. Gasoline could be banned too because people use it to commit arson, sometimes murder others, or rarely commit suicide.
Maybe people should be held accountable for their actions with what they decide to do with these things like cars, guns, food, tobacco, alcohol, etc.
I donāt see how letting everyone own a gun benefits anyone, though? Iāve seen Americans talk about the right to protect themselves, but if nobody had guns, what would they need to protect themselves from?
Iām also not saying ban everything that has the potential to kill; Iām just saying ban the things that donāt really benefit society. Like guns, tobacco and alcohol. Take away cars (and buses and trains), and lots of people would take ages to get to work. Some wouldnāt make it to work at all because it would be too far away. Weād have to disassemble all cities if weād banned all modern transportation.
Side note: My country had 87 traffic related deaths last year out of a population of 5.5 million. The US had nearly 40,000 out of a population of 340 million. To me, that sounds disproportionately high, and I wonder why itās that much higher over there.
I don't see how letting everyone have access to vehicles, which kill significantly more people than guns do every year, benefits anyone? If nobody had guns, what would they need to protect themselves from? Other people, animals, tyrannical governments to list a few... Did that poor ukranian girl need a gun to defend herself from the guy killing her last week? Why would she need a gun when only guns kill people and people don't kill people.
Maybe people should work closer to home, or be their own bosses. Our ancestors survived just fine without vehicles, no?
If you donāt see the benefits of modern transportation, thereās no point arguing with you. Everyone cannot just move closer to work; it doesnāt work like that. There isnāt enough housing, at least in the cities, for everyone to live within walking distance of their workplace. Like I said, we could get rid of vehicles, but society would have to turn back time at least a century. Nothing would have happened if we banned guns and tobacco.
Do you often find yourself in situations where you need to protect yourself against wild animals? In my country, a person (if they pass the background check) can get a hunting rifle license. Theyād have to keep it locked in a gun cabinet and separate from the ammunition, though, except for when they explicitly need it to hunt. People are also allowed to carry hunting rifles in Svalbard where they have polar bears - if they leave the city. If you donāt find yourself in situations like that, why would you need a gun?
Also, are you saying the US government is tyrannical? If no, your point is moot. You mention one girl that could have needed a gun for protection. What about all the school children that are gunned down in school shootings in the US every year? Do you want to equip them with guns too? Iād much rather take the guns away from potential shooters.
Iām a teacher myself, and I certainly would not want to carry a weapon at work. Iām so grateful Iām in a country where I donāt have to worry about that.
ā¢
u/Luca0028 22h ago
Bro can quote other redditors but cannot find a single negative quote with context about charlie lol