cab21 Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 so after reading some articles of republican politicians calling for flight bans of flights from countries with ebola cases, it makes me curius about why there is such call for government control over flights, using the same arguments democrats seem to use for why there should be gun control. both use stuff like "anything to prevent death and protect american citizens". yet each seem to support the one and not the other, in opposites.
shirgall Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 There's a huge difference in the operating mode. Guns are not a disease. Guns are not a health crisis. Not everyone that has a gun becomes a probable death-dealer. (If it was that way the entire country would have been dead years ago.) However, people who catch ebola can quite unwittingly and unwillingly infect others, and have a significant motivation for hiding the possibility of infection until they go somewhere where they can be treated. They aren't using the same arguments at all. The gun control argument usually devolves to a hysterical "what about the children?" The restricted travel argument is generally, "it doesn't get to other continents if you don't take it there." In fact, the arguments for closing the border sound more like the War on Terrorism arguments: "It's better to fight it over there than it is to fight it over here." There's your parallel. ObligatoryRelevance: I've legally carried guns in public for over two decades, been a political party operative (including being a delegate), and I'm married to an Emergency Room nurse. 2
AustinJames Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 To me, this is a perfect example of why privatization would solve complex problems. Because the borders are publicly "owned," and controlled by the government, it is impossible to take preventative action against threats such as ebola, at least in a timely manner. If all land were privately owned, it would be a no-brainer. Property owners would take immediate action to protect their customers and investments, responding to the demand of their customers. 1
cab21 Posted October 13, 2014 Author Posted October 13, 2014 Not everyone that has a gun becomes a probable death-dealer. not everyone on a plane or in a country is a probaly ebola carryer. methods to identify who has it, is simular to methods to identify probaly death dealers with guns, and put them into a different catagory than the normal legal gun owner. http://www.ibtimes.com/gunshot-wounds-hospitalize-20-us-children-every-day-study-underlines-toll-gun-related-injuries now this gun control article has a few from the disease control unwittingly and unwillingly infect others, article talks about accidental gunshot victims of people unwittenly and unwillinly shooting themselves or others. "it doesn't get to other continents if you don't take it there." the article talks about how the gunshot wound would not have happened if there was no gun in the first place. children don't shoot themselves by accident if a parent does not take a gun into the home and if the parent does not secure the gun. the gun does not get to the child if not taken to where the child has access "It's better to fight it over there than it is to fight it over here." perhaps the equiv could be that it's better to control gun manufactoring than try and control guns once already out there being sold.
Recommended Posts