The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

Originally Posted by Annoyed s have the guns? Criminals don't bother to abide by gun control laws.

I think it would be better if no one had the guns.

That isn't among your choices. As I said, the criminals will continue to have guns because criminals don't generally follow the laws.

Boiling it down further, Guns are just a tool, and like any other tool, it can be used or misused.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that you can have your dream world, where no one has guns.

You will still have people who think that they have the right to take property that doesn't belong to them by way of force. So rather than using guns, they will use other tools such as direct physical aggression, knives, bombs, cars, and hundreds of other ways to kill people who would rather keep what they have earned.

The problem isn't the tool. The problem is the people.

[Ukko]

That isn't among your choices. As I said, the criminals will continue to have guns because criminals don't generally follow the laws.

Boiling it down further, Guns are just a tool, and like any other tool, it can be used or misused.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that you can have your dream world, where no one has guns.

You will still have people who think that they have the right to take property that doesn't belong to them by way of force. So rather than using guns, they will use other tools such as direct physical aggression, knives, bombs, cars, and hundreds of other ways to kill people who would rather keep what they have earned.

The problem isn't the tool. The problem is the people.

Criminals do and have alot of things, that doesn't mean everyone and their mum should also have access to those things. Where does it stop? At what point does "they have one so i need one" become too much?

Of course its one of my choices. The question was a would you rather, and i'd rather no one have them.
The whole tool thing can be said about nearly everything created by man. But sticking to guns, or weapons in general this specific tool was designed to kill. So technically you could say that to use it any other way would be to misuse it.

Unlike the movies, bullets wont stop a car from moving, regardless of weather or not you hit the driver. They wont stop bombs and shooting someone for getting physical or trying to take some stuff is ridiculously over the top and not worth ending someones life for. (In fact the countries where they do do things like that are exactly the ones our two respective nations like to criticize, invade and bomb for doing things the wrong way) Even knowing we have a problem with knife crime here, giving everyone guns wont make things any better. Us not having guns works well enough here in the UK, and a whole bunch of other countries too. Countries whoes citizens dont all carry guns wont and dont suddenly erupt into anarchy or get taken over by some tyrannical despot.

I agree that people are generally s***y and will find ways to hurt one another any way they can. But making it easier by giving them tools designed to do exactly that wont make things any better or anyone any safer.
Yes, people are part of the problem, and those problem people created a tool to end lives. We could all do without tools and other things created by those problem people.

[SoulReaver]

I would think they use a combo of heatseeking and guidance by chip (so it can be hacked).

guidance implies propulsion of some kind, where'd the energy come from?
unless it's a passive thing like special fins on the bullet which slightly change its path but that'd still need a motor of sorts, plus a computer & camera to guide it. that'd be one very complex & expensive bullet not to mention it'd still need an unusually strong battery

I think it would be better if no one had the guns.

it would, but try saying that to perps & cops. lol

[Annoyed]

Criminals do and have alot of things, that doesn't mean everyone and their mum should also have access to those things. Where does it stop? At what point does "they have one so i need one" become too much?

The stopping point comes when people no longer attempt to take things from other people.

Of course its one of my choices. The question was a would you rather, and i'd rather no one have them.

Yes, if you're discussing a fantasy world, it can be one of your choices. However, I'm referring to the real world.

The whole tool thing can be said about nearly everything created by man. But sticking to guns, or weapons in general this specific tool was designed to kill. So technically you could say that to use it any other way would be to misuse it.

Yes, this tool was designed to kill things. But among it's uses is as a tool for defense against aggression. Since we can't take them away from those who would take other people's property, I'd say that keeping them available as a means of defense against such people is a good thng. Or would you rather that folks just allow the people who want to steal their property to do so?

Unlike the movies, bullets wont stop a car from moving, regardless of weather or not you hit the driver. They wont stop bombs and shooting someone for getting physical or trying to take some stuff is ridiculously over the top and not worth ending someones life for. (In fact the countries where they do do things like that are exactly the ones our two respective nations like to criticize, invade and bomb for doing things the wrong way) Even knowing we have a problem with knife crime here, giving everyone guns wont make things any better. Us not having guns works well enough here in the UK, and a whole bunch of other countries too. Countries whoes citizens dont all carry guns wont and dont suddenly erupt into anarchy or get taken over by some tyrannical despot.

Getting shot will generally stop someone who is attempting to deprive someone else of their property in their tracks. It will also stop most forms of physical aggression as well. In this case, the tool is being used in a positive manner, protecting someone from aggression of another.

I agree that people are generally s***y and will find ways to hurt one another any way they can. But making it easier by giving them tools designed to do exactly that wont make things any better or anyone any safer.
Yes, people are part of the problem, and those problem people created a tool to end lives. We could all do without tools and other things created by those problem people.

You seem to focus on the inappropriate use of firearms as justification for their removal from existence.

Try to consider the positive uses that this tool has. Defending people from aggression is a worthwhile goal. If the people who seek to take property from other people by force have to factor in a very real possibility of their own immediate death at the hands of their intended victim, I'm thinking there might be a whole lot less aggression in this country.

[pookey]

They must load the image of its target into the bullet and then it follows the optic data. Bet it gets thro the duracell batteries

[Falcon Horus]

No, health care in the U.S. is not young at all. In fact, the U.S. health care system was one of best and most advanced in the world, if not the best. Many people from around the world came here to have diseases that were untreatable in their home countries for treatment.

I'm sorry - I meant the health care insurance system. I'm sure health care, for those who can pay, is top notch.

As far as access to that health care system, prior to the start of our economic downfall in the 70's and eighties, the majority of our citizens had health insurance through their employers. But our government though it would be a good idea to sign treaties that would outsource many of our better paying jobs backwater nations where labor costs were pennies on the dollar in comparison, and now it wants to import low wage workers to take jobs that can't be easily outsourced.

It always comes down to this for you, doesn't it.
Those damn foreigners.

Let's pick a simple procedure some of us might have to undergo at some point in our lives if we're really unlucky - an appendectomy:

In Belgium where everyone has health insurance:
cost to health insurance: 1,950€ ($2,183) / cost to self: 435€ ($487) (single room)
cost to health insurance: 1,793€ ($2,007)/ cost to self: 206€ ($231) (sharing a room with one other patient)
cost to health insurance: 1,863€ ($2,085) / cost to self: 126€ ($141) (sharing with 2+ patients in the same room)

In the US apparently prices vary a little bit according to this article -- Appendix surgery costs differ around U.S.:
Between $1,500 (1,339€) to $180,000 (160,690€), with an average of $33,000 (29,460€).

Insurance companies often negotiate to pay less than what they are billed, and what patients pay depends on their health plans. Those least able to pay - the uninsured - could be socked with the full bill.

guidance implies propulsion of some kind, where'd the energy come from?
unless it's a passive thing like special fins on the bullet which slightly change its path but that'd still need a motor of sorts, plus a computer & camera to guide it. that'd be one very complex & expensive bullet not to mention it'd still need an unusually strong battery

The propulsion comes from being fired from a gun - action/reaction.

[SoulReaver]

They must load the image of its target into the bullet and then it follows the optic data. Bet it gets thro the duracell batteries

wouldn't such batteries require ultra high density (energy/mass ratio) far beyond today's tech
the sort of batteries that could power a commercial airliner for hours when brought up to scale

The propulsion comes from being fired from a gun - action/reaction.

I know but what about the guidance part?
given the speed of the bullet, fins might not be enough since they'd only make for a few centimetres difference at best. so they'd need lateral thrusters

[pookey]

The only guidance it seems to have are the bands around the bullet, if you watch the vid it shows you

[pookey]

Dont know if you saw this vid Reaver as i edited
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/29/us...iref=obnetwork

[Falcon Horus]

I know but what about the guidance part?
given the speed of the bullet, fins might not be enough since they'd only make for a few centimetres difference at best. so they'd need lateral thrusters

Pookey posted another article with a video. It explains it a wee bit.

[SoulReaver]

Dont know if you saw this vid Reaver as i edited
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/29/us...iref=obnetwork

alrite but that raises even more questions

fins could steer a bullet a bit but no bloody way they could make it do sharp turns like that unless the fins are extremely long (and the bullet extremely light for negligible momentum - like paper bullets or something)

this is about as realistic as JFK's magic bullet

[Falcon Horus]

It's not meant to make sharp turns - it's supposed to aid when there's a sudden gust of wind, shaky hands from a sniper (I thought they didn't have shaky hands, but okay), poor visibility.

[SoulReaver]

the video says otherwise (shows an almost 90° turn)

[pookey]

Yep, i have to agree with Reaver, it makes a sharp turn

[Annoyed]

I'm sorry - I meant the health care insurance system. I'm sure health care, for those who can pay, is top notch.

It always comes down to this for you, doesn't it.
Those damn foreigners.

No, it always comes down to the sorry state of our economy and that is not the fault of foreigners.

That is the fault of our own leaders, from BOTH major political parties.

During the eighties, our leaders began negotiating trade deals under the banner of "Free Trade". The result was many companies moved jobs out of the United States to other nations where their labor costs were pennies on the dollar compared to U.S. wage levels for various reasons. These jobs generally provided at least middle class level incomes for our citizens. Most of these jobs have not and will never return unless our trade polices change so that they are more in favor of our own citizens, rather than the corporate interests that are running the show these days.
So we have an economy which is not providing enough jobs for our own citizens. This lack of jobs also contributes to the health care dilemma. With 100's of applicants for any job that is open, companies don't have to offer competitive benefit packages to get workers.

The only way "Those damn foreigners" come into play is that with our economy not providing enough jobs for our own citizens, we have no business allowing more people to enter our labor markets.