Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
This is more than ever a topic to discuss, especially in Europe, and I found it relevant to ask the Dakka community about it.
So. What do you think ? Should a people/an individual accept to lose some of their rights for more safety ?
(I am strongly on the "Rights" side.)
A resounding no. I've spent me whole adult life in harms way defending peoples rights. It's why I'm so vociferously against curtailing the 2nd Amendment.
I'm going to quote one of America's founding fathers here. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
At some point, *we* have to be held accountable to our own safety.
Yes and no. I get what you're saying, but no man is an island in our modern societies.
My tax money, and yours, pays for our respective police forces. You wouldn't or can't rely on them for 100% guarantee of safety, but you wouldn't want them abolished either.
This is more than ever a topic to discuss, especially in Europe, and I found it relevant to ask the Dakka community about it.
So. What do you think ? Should a people/an individual accept to lose some of their rights for more safety ?
(I am strongly on the "Rights" side.)
For a long time, I've always believed that when freedom is under attack, the answer is more freedom, not less...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/27 16:35:04
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
For example, people have given up the right to drive without a licence because safety on the roads is massively increased by the relatively trivial requirement of training for and taking the test. For the developed world, that situation is a no-brainer, and we vilify people who drive without a licence, partly because they tend to be bad drivers who cause crashes and don't have insurance either.
Clearly though, you are thinking of rights such as privacy against government surveillance of your communications -- phone, email, social media, etc -- against the increased safety hopefully provided by the security services being able to monitor criminal and terrorists plots.
This is far trickier to resolve, because there are fairly obvious potential downsides to the government (or it could be companies such as Google) knowing everything about you, while the increase in security is not at all obvious to the general public even if it's happening.
At one level I don't like the idea of some pimply minion of bureaucracy knowing I rang a recruitment agency this afternoon, exchanged a few emails, spent the rest of the day reading Girl Genius online and looking at model kits on HLJ, and then went to the supermarket and what I bought there. At another level, why do I care if some database contains this info as long as it isn't used against me? The question would be how much it costs to collect and analyse this colossal amount of data and get any useful anti-terrorism results out of it. I suspect that targetted surveillance rather than planet-wide data mining may be a better approach.
Imagine what a forum like DakkaDakka looks like to a program designed to identify trigger words like gun, bomb and tactics in masses of text. Wouldn't a real terrorist use code words anyway?
At some point, though, it might occur to the government to check how much beer I buy per month, and tell my doctor to call me in for a talking to about drink. This IMO would be getting too much like a surveillance society.
I think there are some cases, like airline travel, where statistics show that some of the extra burden on passengers is in no way matched by enhanced security anyway, and is just an expensive piece of "security theatre". These certainly ought to be done away with.
At some point, *we* have to be held accountable to our own safety.
Yes and no. I get what you're saying, but no man is an island in our modern societies.
My tax money, and yours, pays for our respective police forces. You wouldn't or can't rely on them for 100% guarantee of safety, but you wouldn't want them abolished either.
I said "At some point"... that's not a call for abolition of the po-po.
Because, legally, the police isn't required to protect me.
At some point, *we* have to be held accountable to our own safety.
Yes and no. I get what you're saying, but no man is an island in our modern societies.
My tax money, and yours, pays for our respective police forces. You wouldn't or can't rely on them for 100% guarantee of safety, but you wouldn't want them abolished either.
I said "At some point"... that's not a call for abolition of the po-po.
Because, legally, the police isn't required to protect me.
You're telling me! IMO, the biggest threat to my freedom is not Islamic terrorists or Irish dissidents unhappy with the Good Friday agreement, it's the new Prime Minister of Britain.
When she was Home Secretary, she had a track record of locking up people without trial or charging them, and pushing for more surveillance and blanket data collection.
At some point, *we* have to be held accountable to our own safety.
Yes and no. I get what you're saying, but no man is an island in our modern societies.
My tax money, and yours, pays for our respective police forces. You wouldn't or can't rely on them for 100% guarantee of safety, but you wouldn't want them abolished either.
I said "At some point"... that's not a call for abolition of the po-po.
Because, legally, the police isn't required to protect me.
This is more than ever a topic to discuss, especially in Europe, and I found it relevant to ask the Dakka community about it.
So. What do you think ? Should a people/an individual accept to lose some of their rights for more safety ?
(I am strongly on the "Rights" side.)
For a long time, I've always believed that when freedom is under attack, the answer is more freedom, not less...
You sure you're not a 'Murrican?
If I were American, my allegiance would be to the legitimate government in Richmond.
I'm joking of course, but as to the issue of the police protection and responsibility for safety,
I think we discussed this issue on the other thread (unarmed police) and the consensus was that US police don't have a duty to protect, but British police do...
Subtle cultural differences.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/27 16:52:59
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
redleger wrote: I'm going to quote one of America's founding fathers here. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
Sounds like a wise man. I'll agree with him. Sure, it might be different if your life is directly threatened. But in Europe, there is no real threat to anyone. Apart from cars maybe. Cars are killers, much worse than terrorists.
When you have like a 25% chance to get killed by a terrorist, then it is probably worth it to go with safety over liberty. Until then, liberty is so far more important, for once surrendered, it is so very hard to ever get it back.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/27 17:35:14
redleger wrote: I'm going to quote one of America's founding fathers here. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
Sounds like a wise man. I'll agree with him.
Sure, it might be different if your life is directly threatened. But in Europe, there is no real threat to anyone. Apart from cars maybe. Cars are killers, much worse than terrorists.
When you have like a 25% chance to get killed by a terrorist, then it is probably worth it to go with safety over liberty. Until then, liberty is so far more important, for once surrendered, it is so very hard to ever get it back.
Benjamin Franklin.
And you're right. With media attention blowing the issue up so big, people often tend to lose perspective of just how rare the events really are.
redleger wrote: I'm going to quote one of America's founding fathers here. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
Sounds like a wise man. I'll agree with him.
Sure, it might be different if your life is directly threatened. But in Europe, there is no real threat to anyone. Apart from cars maybe. Cars are killers, much worse than terrorists.
When you have like a 25% chance to get killed by a terrorist, then it is probably worth it to go with safety over liberty. Until then, liberty is so far more important, for once surrendered, it is so very hard to ever get it back.
Benjamin Franklin.
And you're right. With media attention blowing the issue up so big, people often tend to lose perspective of just how rare the events really are.
I knew a fellow vet would know who said this!
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
While I agree with the liberty vs terror threat angle, I do have a dissent to "liberty for everyone in all things". I do not think someone's liberty/rights should extend to allowing them to endanger someone else, like the anti-vaccination idiocy that's gaining far too much traction.
Liberty and safety are both largely illusory, and generally secondary to prosperity, so meh. In modern western nations, prosperity has allowed greater freedom of action and also resulted in safer societies. Societies with less prosperity tend to show greater levels of instability, violence, and coercive governance. So the trick is to limit destructive antisocial behaviors while not stifling the productive prosocial ones.
Media isn't terribly helpful in analyzing crime/terrorism/etc. as, especially in the US, they have ulterior profit and circulation motives. If it bleeds, it leads, as they say.
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
As someone who most Americans ITT probably fiercely disagree with on this topic, I will go with safety over rights, to a certain point.
I think government surveillance should be limited. Privacy is fine. People carrying firearms around is something different entirely. If I knew every robber around could shoot me from a fair distance away, I don't think I would even do the night running sessions I love anymore.
People often say they keep firearms themselves because they do not want to place their security in the hands of others (in this case, the government). But think of it this way. If you have a gun, that means you are placing my security in your hands whether I want to or not. You can gun down a robber who is assaulting me, sure. Or you can shoot me instead. And there is nothing I can do about it either way. I do not think anyone ITT is likely to shoot me down given the option, but then, it is a more likely scenario than the whole 'government goes nuts and we need guns to take it down' thing.
Does your freedom of having a gun override my freedom of not living in a society where every robber around can legally carry a firearm (up until the actual robbery)?
And before someone pulls up the car analogy, when was the last time someone tried to rob you by running you over with a car?
I really am un-American in this, I have realised. Or rather, not stereotypically American. I basically agree with everything Sanders says. I am pacifistic, an environmentalist, and a feminist. I have massive distrust for corporations, but I approve of a big government (privately run prisons, for instance, is utter insanity.) I have no fear, disapproval or distrust towards your average street Muslim whatsoever, even if I disagree with many of its creeds (Freedom of religion does not override human rights).
Boy I will get roasted for this.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/07/28 01:54:24
What's interesting to me is that by nearly any measure, people are both safer and freer than at any other time in human history.
In the US, the biggest threat to our freedoms isn't the government, which has always violated constitutional rights. It's the extent to which our business is done publicly. SCOTUS had taken a very textualist approach to the 4th amendment, and decided that if its not in your home, person, or papers, the expectation of privacy is limited.
There is a place where you can have the most security possible. Along with an education, hot meals, lodgings, etc. It's called prison. Even then people still suffer harm at the hands of others.
Ashiraya wrote: Does your freedom of having a gun override my freedom of not living in a society where every robber around can legally carry a firearm (up until the actual robbery)?
Yes. Guns are used more for lawful than unlawful purposes, and your argument pre-supposes that someone intending to commit a crime will obey the law (hint: they won't)
Ashiraya wrote: And before someone pulls up the car analogy, when was the last time someone tried to rob you by running you over with a car?
Locke says that you are inherently free despite the government and Hobbes says that you are only allowed those freedoms that government grants you.
That's the TLDR version.
You have the rights to flail your arms, but if your fist smashes my face while you do so then you violate my right to not have my face smashed.
Until your fist hits my nose I want to allow you to exercise your right, but with the knowledge that should your limb offend my face then I shall use my right to preserve my bodily integrity to prevent that or retaliate should it happen.
Armies: Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, Eldar, Necrons, Orks, Dark Eldar.
I am the best 40k player in my town, I always win! Of course, I am the only player of 40k in my town.
Good for you. An increased risk of suffering greater injuries and/or death for me is not a price I would want to pay so you can keep your hobby. Try a hobby that can't kill from a great distance, such as knitting.
Guns are used more for lawful than unlawful purposes
So? What matters is when it goes wrong, not when it goes right.
and your argument pre-supposes that someone intending to commit a crime will obey the law (hint: they won't)
No, it pre-supposes that if I am robbed/attacked/raped/assaulted/whatever, I am less likely to end up shot if it is very difficult for the attacker to acquire a gun beforehand. That seems reasonable, no? As I said previously, people often justify it by saying that most legally acquired firearms are not used criminally, but some are - it is far from unheard of - and that alone makes me against it.
You are free to disagree with me, of course (the freedom of disagreement is not going to get anyone shot no matter where you point it) but memes are hardly convincing.
Spoiler:
I don't see how your dinosaur picture would be wrong if you switched the names on them, either.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/28 02:36:22
Ashiraya wrote: Good for you. An increased risk of suffering greater injuries and/or death for me is not a price I would want to pay so you can keep your hobby. Try a hobby that can't kill from a great distance, such as knitting.
Your right to choose. Just like mine. Funny how that works.
Ashiraya wrote: So? What matters is when it goes wrong, not when it goes right.
So we ignore the overwhelming positive uses, but instead concentrate on the smaller number of negative uses? So you like to jog, a small number of people have dropped dead while jogging. Why have you not stopped?
Ashiraya wrote: No, it pre-supposes that if I am robbed/attacked/raped/assaulted/whatever, I am less likely to end up shot if it is very difficult for the attacker to acquire a gun beforehand. That seems reasonable, no? As I said previously, people often justify it by saying that most legally acquired firearms are not used criminally, but some are - it is far from unheard of - and that alone makes me against it.
No. Criminals in countries with tight gun regulations can still get guns, or other weapons. If you wish to be at a disadvantage when confronted by an assailant (or multiple assailants) that is your choice. Just because you do not personally agree with something you are again ignoring the preponderance of evidence that the overwhelming majority of firearms are owned and used safely. So what else would you like to prohibit because of a statistically small problem, or that you find personally disagreeable?
Ashiraya wrote: You are free to disagree with me, of course (the freedom of disagreement is not going to get anyone shot no matter where you point it) but memes are hardly convincing.
So you're stooping to cheap shots because people enjoy a right that you do not approve of?
Your right to choose. Just like mine. Funny how that works.
Yeah, it's not your life that is being put in greater danger for someone else's hobby, so of course you are happy with that.
Ugh.
So we ignore the overwhelming positive uses, but instead concentrate on the smaller number of negative uses?
Yep. The bads are a lot worse than the goods are good, so why not?
So you like to jog, a small number of people have dropped dead while jogging. Why have you not stopped?
I solemnly swear to you that whenever my jogging turns into a deadly weapon that can quickly kill others from afar, I will stop immediately and find something else to do with my time.
In addition, dying from exercise in general is not particularly tied to jogging, and if you choose to jog and it busts your heart, it at least leaves bystanders unscathed.
When was the latest jogging massacre now again? I can't remember.
I'll have to thank you for the pretty funny mental image of a mass shooting where jogging is the perpetrator's weapon, though.
No. Criminals in countries with tight gun regulations can still get guns, or other weapons.
It is a lot more difficult to do so, however. If you are caught with a gun in Sweden without a valid reason, you are in trouble.
If you wish to be at a disadvantage when confronted by an assailant (or multiple assailants) that is your choice.
Or we can just not use the guns and no one has to be put at a disadvantage.
Just because you do not personally agree with something you are again ignoring the preponderance of evidence that the overwhelming majority of firearms are owned and used safely.
It feels like you are not arguing with what I am saying here. I have never contested any data, I am just disagreeing with you on what to do with that data. That most do it right does not mean that it is not a serious problem, since minorities can cause problems as well.
So what else would you like to prohibit because of a statistically small problem, or that you find personally disagreeable?
Nothing in particular leaps to mind.
So you're stooping to cheap shots because people enjoy a right that you do not approve of?
Cheap shots? That I am not convinced by memes?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Listen, Dreadclaw, I am probably not going to convince you and you are probably not going to convince me, either. I simply wanted to explain my point of view. Maybe we should not make this go down the usual gun thread road?
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/07/28 03:11:53
Listen, Dreadclaw, I am probably not going to convince you and you are probably not going to convince me, either. I simply wanted to explain my point of view. Maybe we should not make this go down the usual gun thread road?
Probably best to agree to disagree. It also wouldn't hurt to acknowledge that every nation has its own issues surrounding gun control - many countries have always had strict gun laws, and the availability of firearms on the black market is relatively low. In the US this is simply not the case.
The viewpoint of "if everyone had a gun," and the "if guns were illegal" viewpoint are really two sides of the same coin that doesn't exist in reality.
Indeed, let's see if we can keep this more general/have a new focus, instead of it just becoming another gun thread consigned to the pile of locked threads when it gets too heated/posts become full of mocking memes and the like.
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
Security vs Liberty is a hopelessly vague question that invites answers based entirely on ideology. To get actual useful answers you need to get in to the specifics of individual issues, and then in to the detail of specific proposals for handling those issues.
What people forget is that when you get in to the specifics of actual policy proposals the trade off becomes minimal or even disappears. In many cases you will lose almost no liberty for the improvement in security, in many other cases the cost in liberty will be great for little to no increase in security. But of course, figuring that out requires actually finding out the specifics of the current case and how the proposal might change. Which is a lot of work. Instead people argue about the abstract, a debate that liberty is geared to win, and they miss the reality that in the real world you can lots of liberty and lots of security if you just get the policies right.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/28 07:50:38
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
It's a very vague question. Ask it with an American in the room and we naturally just fall straight to a narrow discussion of the 2nd amendment
But it's a much broader question than that because first you have to ask the question, what rights?
You can argue that there are no natural rights, any rights are only granted by the society we live in. In which case the best you can hope for is the people who grant you rights represent your own/the majority's feeling on the matter.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/28 06:25:54
No. Criminals in countries with tight gun regulations can still get guns, or other weapons. If you wish to be at a disadvantage when confronted by an assailant (or multiple assailants) that is your choice. Just because you do not personally agree with something you are again ignoring the preponderance of evidence that the overwhelming majority of firearms are owned and used safely. So what else would you like to prohibit because of a statistically small problem, or that you find personally disagreeable?
Do they get fully automated military grade weapons just like that? If yes why in stricter countries weapons actually used tend to be less lethal than in more liberal gun country...
There's scale of damage somebody can do with non-automated rifle than fully automated assault rifle.
Where one needs assault rifles anyway for normal? Not good for hunting for starters...And one can't use less lethal gun for target practicing? Assault rifles aren't good guns for accuracy shooting competitions either...
While freedoms is good at what point it becomes freedom just for sake of freedom? Why your average Joe needs to be able to buy military grade assault rifles without any problems?
Grenades? Anti tank missiles? Bombs? Stealth bomber with nuclear warhead? If one's got enough money why shouldn't he be allowed to get those as well?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/28 09:36:20
tneva82 wrote: Do they get fully automated military grade weapons just like that? If yes why in stricter countries weapons actually used tend to be less lethal than in more liberal gun country...
There's scale of damage somebody can do with non-automated rifle than fully automated assault rifle.
Where one needs assault rifles anyway for normal? Not good for hunting for starters...And one can't use less lethal gun for target practicing? Assault rifles aren't good guns for accuracy shooting competitions either...
While freedoms is good at what point it becomes freedom just for sake of freedom? Why your average Joe needs to be able to buy military grade assault rifles without any problems?
Grenades? Anti tank missiles? Bombs? Stealth bomber with nuclear warhead? If one's got enough money why shouldn't he be allowed to get those as well?
Out of respect of the request of the Mods I am not going to reply in this thread, but if you would like to discuss this via PM I welcome the opportunity to do so.
