Monday, February 20, 2017

Q&A - 20/2


The gun issue is about deciding between a) whether people have the right to protect themselves or b) the availability of guns (too many).

Not exactly 

The gun debate is about deciding which kinds of deaths are more acceptable than others.

For the sake of argument, let's say in one scenario gun sales are restricted, so X number of people die "because they had no protection while they were the target of a crime". Then let's say, in another scenario, there are little restrictions (as today) so there are Y number of deaths because more regular ppl, without any criminal background, have the means to kill others in a blitz of rampage, or themselves, like a little child at home with a parent's gun.

Let's say these two numbers are equal. X = Y.

Which scenario is more acceptable?

What I argue is that, X deaths, meaning deaths that are caused by gun restrictions are, must be more acceptable. Because in that scenario, there is accountability. There is crime, someone dies at the hands of a criminal, then police, city mayor, the governor, etc are all responsible. You press these people for change. In the other case, who? We can't go to the insane / lone-wolf person who shot up bunch of ppl and ask him to be "more responsible next time". The deed is done. He killed tens, dozens already. Actually this accountability imbalance is the main reason why right-wing Reps keep asking for more guns, because their way has gone so far off the path accountability that they need to argue more and more citizens protect themselves (even little kids at school), they cannot point anyone who can take any meaningful action. But their way is a dead end. They can't hold anyone accountable, but someone needs to be.

Now about to the numbers: I said "let's assume X=Y". But we all know that Y > X. Actually Y >> X (Y is much greater than X). The legal availability of guns almost ensures that it seeps through the population and creates a situation where anyone can get hold of a gun. I went to Florida once, and I saw tourist attractions where you could go to a gun-range and shoot a f--ing Uzi. Most likely licensed to be sure, and the gun range was most likely operated by a licensed person, but now this weapon is in the society, a nosy child, a thief, disgruntled employee, can get it. An AR-15 can be purchased legally in many states. Still. See postpost.

On X: is there a direct correlation between having a gun and protecting oneself effectively? See here.


But Republicans don't want government to do anything.

Well, that is a larger issue isn't it?

Gov needs to do something. Provide for basic safety, basic regulation. I am all for small government, but some say "gov should not touch my food". No - regulate the goddamn food. I don't want frog, dog, or donkey meat in my burger.


I really like the tea cup u talk about here. What is the brand?


Link. They also sell the tea itself. Mmmmmm.. Earl-gray tea with bergamotte arooomaaaa.. 

Q&A - 12/7

Question I still have issues with the baker case. . why could the baker not serve the gay couple? Here is a good analogy Imagine you ...