followed tags: 23
followed domains: 0
badges given: 0 of 1
member for: 1965 days
I think you'd get a lot of public support for this kind of "usage" or "intent"-based restrictions on legal weapon types. It would resonate with a lot of gun owners as well. However, what makes an approach like this pretty thorny to implement is that at some point an agent of the state will need to physically show up at people's doors and demand they turn over the weapons that are no longer legal to possess or be arrested. Obviously there going to be some violent confrontations during these encounters but even worse, this action would completely validate not just the "THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE ALL OUR GUNS!!" viewpoint, but every other reactionary, slippery-slope fear that the folks with this worldview hold. I think it would get really ugly.
I happen to agree very strongly that re-evaluating what weapon types are legal to possess is a helpful discussion to have. The practical limitations around removing existing gun types from the population though may limit implementation to something like banning NEW sales of these restricted types and grandfathering in any weapons already in the wild. This clearly reduces the benefits gained by the change significantly and possibly creates more problems than it solves.
The Gun Deaths In America data presented in this FiveThirtyEight article is important to consider (here's that subtly in discourse again) when discussing the impact of any propsed legislative change. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mass-shootings-are-a-bad-way-to-understand-gun-violence/
Is our goal to prevent deaths from guns? What kinds of deaths? Would the proposed legislation have any impact on suicides, domestic violence, or mass shootings only? Are we proposing something as difficult to implement as confiscating guns door-to-door to only impact 1% of gun related deaths?
I liked Seth Meyers recent point about our options: "Congress, are there no steps we can take as a nation to prevent gun violence, or is this just how it is and how it's going to continue to be?"
We forget that in a democracy we can always try to change what we value and how we want our country to operate. It may be incredibly difficult to make certain kinds of changes but there is path forward for almost any change we want to make. We have to decide first what we want to accomplish. Perhaps our nation's answer is actually "This just how it is and how it's going to continue to be." I just don't believe our public discourse is capable of a reasoned, practical, and nuanced evaluation of our options. Not even at the theoretical or conceptual level let alone at the implementation level. It's going to be done in the intellectual vacuum of "all guns should be banned, period" vs. "don't touch any of our guns or ammo, period".
We're also not a nation of subtle discourse. An attempt to discuss an incremental change to the scope of the background check process for private sales of guns gets lumped into the "YOU WANT TO TAKE ALL OUR GUNS AWAY!!!!!" side of the black and white framing that the vocal majority or MSM talking heads work within.
I think myself and the other commentors in this thread are trying to figure out who or what you are arguing against. Where are you reading that anyone wants to get rid of technology? Why do you think a "well kept earth" is incompatible with going to other planets? It really seems like you are inventing an opposing argument and only considering a very narrow list of options you've created yourself.
As I re-read your comments I'm inclined to agree with ThatFanficGuy.
Grendel is a troll that Beowulf fights and kills.
You are creating a false choice. No one is suggesting we do nothing on earth, just treat it a little better. Looking to Mars and looking after our environment are NOT mutually exclusive ideas.
You're really over-complicating the market segment description. It's simply people with money who are attracted to technology. And they certainly don't consider a thermostat swap as a "home improvement project". Home improvement projects to them are putting in a hardwood floor, new countertops, or painting the walls.
Like it or not, understand it or not, agree with it or not, there is a whole class of consumer that will happily fork over $250 for the ability to turn the heat on without getting out of bed, and more importantly to them have guests comment on the "cool looking gadget on the wall". Hell, some of them might even be programmers (loud GASP!). Say it isn't so, Joe. Understanding technology has nothing to do with it.
If those people don't exist then who the hell did Nest sell al their devices to? What you are missing is that there is absolutely a class of consumer that wants all of the bells and whistles you and I don't value. They don't give a shit that there are cheaper altenatives available with the same core features and same easy installation process. They are likely very aware they are simply throwing their dollars at the aesthetics of the product. I wish I had disposable income for this kind of stuff. My furniture collection and wall art would be quite different I assure you.
Besides, the Honeywell Smart thermostat is a better bells and whistles match to the Nest than the base programmable you linked to, so with an honest comparison it's really only $70 worth of hipster bullshit not $230.
Not insightful because you already knew how this fake review/like economy works? It was information I hadn't been exposed to before so I felt it was educational. The author is female, BTW.
- So I cried. I sat there, watching what's undeniably one of the best moments of my life, and couldn't think about it the same way anymore. This situation is so real, so emotionally raw. I want to be the best Blackhawks fan I can be, the best person I can be. I have no idea how to reconcile those things with the possibility that one of my favorite players has completely failed to hold up his end of the bargain. For so long, the Hawks had done that. Now everything is put into question.
Oh, brother... Take a step back. A sport you watch should not trigger an existential crisis.