But would stronger regulations affect their need for protection? You don't need incredibly deadly firearms to protect yourself, and since the state should protect everyone, that includes protecting the other people from you - so you should only get a weapon if you know how to safely use it and if you don't have any criminal antecedents or mental issues.
Othelos and Greater New Poland
Sure, but you have to convince both sides that a change is necessary. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
* Exactly *
Which certainly is an issue.
I'm just trying to understand why America is what it is. And I don't understand those who oppose stronger firearm regulations at all.
Growing up in NY hasn't lent me much insight into that, either. But it strikes me as a mutated form of classical liberalism (like most american conservatism) - whereby the state has no business regulating what you do/purchase/etc.
But american conservatism tends to rub me the wrong way, because it's extremely hypocritical. On the one hand, those people hate when the government regulates their choices, but they gleefully limit others' rights when given the opportunity, simply because they don't like what the other person is doing. Hence, mutated classical liberalism.
My political knowledge is certainly limited - I never had the time or the energy to like fully get into researching things, but I often consider myself to be a liberal. And living in a state that was a dictatorship before I was born, living with the stories of my parents and grandparents, and now finally getting the right to vote in a point where the ruling party starts to become increasingly authoritarian - I do tend to be pretty inherently hostile to the idea of a state trying to regulate things that it shouldn't.
But we're talking about weapons here. Things which can be used to kill other human beings very effectively. The state not only should have business with regulating it, it should be the state's duty. The state has to protect its citizens from harm.
And don't get me started on pro-lifers who are also pro-firearms, pro-death penalty, and against national healthcare. The cognitive dissonance is real.
Absolutely. This is the exact reason why I have big issues with not regulating firearms correctly. (even though I consider myself mostly a classical liberal who opposes unnecessary state intervention.)
That is simply put hypocrisy.
My stance on the whole abortion thing is a bit complicated. I'm not particularly a fan of the whole killing living beings idea, but I do believe that you can't compare an unborn baby to a fully grown mother. In cases of like rape, or risk to the mother's health, it shouldn't even be a debate.
When it comes to choices that aren't constrained by such preexisting conditions, I'm not even sure if I have an opinion sadly. Pregnancies can be quite horrible, and if the mother will run into issues due to being pregnant (being unable to raise the child, social pressure, like being in a conservative society were making babies outside of marriage is despised), I can empathize with those issues. And with the concept that it's the mother's body and choice.
But in the end I do think that states should invest more in orphanages and organizations for orphan children and in contraception and sex ed before they could even try to bring up the idea of restricting abortion.
They also need to expand the base of available parents beyond the typical heterosexual married couple. A stable, established polyamorous family or a gay/lesbian couple can also offer a good home.
The idea that children raised by gay/lesbian couples will certainly become gay themselves that I've heard seems ridiculous to me. And also not particularly an issue, people should be free to do whatever they want. If there is no issue with gay children being raised by heterosexual couples, the opposite shouldn't be either.
I am curious of whether there are objective studies about whether being raised by gay/lesbian or polyamorous couples has any specific effects on children.
But still, I am firmly of the belief that any sort of parents, as long as they do their parental duties and don't harm the children, would be better than no parents at all. And I especially hate the hypocrisy of the Orthodox Church here, which continues to defend a society built on values that subordinate the woman to the man and encourage domestic abuse (as a small mention, domestic abuse and sexual assaults are huge issues in Romania, most of the cases just aren't reported).
But I'm probably quite a radical for a country like Romania.
A range of studies have shown that children raised by gay couples have equivalent outcomes. Children raised by lesbian couples are usually happier, at least according to one study. In any case, it can't be worse than children raised by single parents and is most definitely better than moving to a new foster parent every year.
I could imagine (this is conjecture) that kids raised by polyamorous couples have more stable upbringings due to the increased availability of parental guidance and diversification of resources (it's less devastating when 1/3 lose a job than 1/2 or 1/1).
Yeah, institutions that subordinate different groups of people to others are quite nasty. The imbalance of power allows those in charge to get away with things other people wouldn't (in this case domestic abusers). & I'm tired of institutions that brush violence against people under the rug & religious institutions that claim to be moral but cause a lot of harm.
That's honestly great to hear. The idea that children would be negatively affected by such an upbringing is the main argument brought up against such things, at least here. I'll have to look a bit into those studies by myself, it would be great to use them the next time I have to discuss the issue.
But I completely agree with you. It would be much better than single parents, or abusing parents, or moving to new foster parents. And the situation in Romania is perhaps even worse, since besides from a lack of foster parents which seems to be an issue in most countries, our orphanages are absolutely horrible, a relic of communist times. A relic of what remained after the disastrous abortion ban of Ceausescu, since all our governments ever since have only done the absolutely minimal reforms they could, and even that only due to international pressure.
And hmm, yeah, that might make sense. Wouldn't a polyamorous relation also lead to attachment issues though? Though it's probably just me finding the idea of having three parents difficult to comprehend, but it shouldn't be that much of an issue. Children do also get attached to grandparents and other relatives too.
And yeah, such institutions are horrible. And the Romanian Orthodox Church is corrupt and hypocritical.
The solution isnít to ban certain kinds of guns, but to have a better examination process. Using a gun should be like getting a drivers license, and the more experience and trustworthiness someone has means the higher level of a gun they are permitted to own and use.
I disagree. If people are permitted to buy super high level weapons, those will invariably be misused.
The US citizens should be able to have the same range of weaponry thatís available to our military to prevent abuses of power.
Hello everyone. I deeply apologize for the inactivity, but I am back and hoping to start again soon.
Othelos and EstRADia
Yeah, because armed civilians fighting professional soldiers is the way to go
The military is much larger and more organized than individuals or private militias. Not to mention that these people would have the most to lose from a rebellion. I don't think this line of thinking is accurate.
I honestly think the discussion surrounding increased gun control largely misses the point when it comes to decreasing gun violence. It does not matter what accessories a gun has, how many bullets are in the magazine, how fast it can shoot, how long it is, or what color it is. I could be given a machine gun right now and be just as safe with it as any other weapon. The type of weapon does isn't an inherent factor to the cause of gun violence, and focusing legislation on them will not provide a sufficient solution to gun violence in order to justify the harm it will do to what I view as a fundamental right to self-defense, and a protection against tyranny/the protection of the Republic. What ties those who commit acts of gun violence together isn't the guns that they hold, but the motives they possess. And by extension the trauma that breeds said motives. ~2/3 of gun deaths are due to suicide, which itself is driven by various factors. Then there are the issues of poverty, gang violence, mental health, lack of education, domestic violence, abuse, drug abuse, and a host of other root causes. To focus our efforts on the mechanism used to create violence ignores the root causes to said violence. And even if banning all weapons does lead to lowering gun violence, it does nothing to address the underlying causes and in a way acts to sweep them under the rug. It is easier to legislate for a material object instead of trying to combat the deep-rooted and complex issues that lead to it's misuse. It's easier to show results for, and easier to tout on the campaign trail. It's cleaner to legislate for, and easier to see results. It's provides a black and white solution to very much a grey area. But to me it is no better that a man want to commit suicide, just not with a gun. Or a person wants to shoot up a theater, but the only thing stopping him is the lack of a gun. Sure, it's great that they can't do it. But the underlying motives go untreated whilst responsible, law-abiding people are denied the means to protect themselves from those with the motives to do harm.
As far as the actual process for getting a gun goes, Im of the opinion that lengthy training isn't a necessity. If all you know are the 4 fundamental rules to operating a firearm, then there is no way for it to unintentionally harm someone else. I've never had a firearm training course, but am confident in my ability to handle a weapon due to knowing those 4 rules. If the process to aquire a firearm is made more expensive, then that restrict firearms to those of a higher socioeconomic status. This prevents those who are a minority or of lesser economic means the ability to effectively defend themselves. Which is especially important for those whose identities are particularly threatened through discrimination and prejudice. As far as licensing goes, that is already a requirement for those who intend to carry a firearm in a public space. On private property I don't see a need for licensing, much like you don't need a license to drive or register your vehicle if it's driven solely on private property. (That may depend on state, not sure).
All that being said, owning a firearm is a massive responsibility and requires great care. Possessing something with the capability for committing great violence. Because of that, I believe you are responsible for the proper handing of that firearm and ensuring that only those with access to it are equally responsible and knowledgeable on how to use/respect it. If you consiously make a decision that puts others at risk, then you should be on the hook for the consequences. Besides that, you shouldn't be on the hook if your firearm is stolen or otherwise is used unlawfully without your knowledge. I also think that requiring all weapons to be under lock and key within a household is an overstep, as it can be a grave obstacle when it comes to you protecting yourself, your family, and your dwelling.
It's a very deep and complex issue, and I think how it's been gone about doesn't lend respect to it's complex nature.