labmath2 Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 There's no need to speculate. Many potential mass shootings, as well as other violent crimes, have been prevented by armed civilians. I find it quite astounding that people are so confident that gun control will prevent mass shootings after what happened in Paris just two weeks ago You know what, i read the link and now i know. Its the first time i have ever read of someone stopping a mass shooting and its amazing that they dont get more publicity. Here i will admit i was wrong, having a gun could prevent mass shooting. Guess you learn something new everyday. 1
dsayers Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 Which makes the argument about how people will sell guns also unknowable. In terms of specifics, this is true of just about any assessment of the future. What we do know is that people adapt. Cars became widespread, heavy and fast, so collisions flung people about, injuring/killing them. So car manufacturers started including seat belts. Then air bags. Then new frame designs. This all happened amid a State. Imagine how much they could've accomplished and how much more efficiently without the State. Also criminals adapt. Everybody adapts. Saying criminals adapt pretends that non-criminals don't adapt also. It's about network strength. As long as there are more people that want no theft in their home/community than there are people that would take that risk, their adaptation will not surmount the adaptation of those who would resist and expose them. If you wanted to make the case for criminals being scary, you should focus on the fact that action is typically faster than reaction. But again, if literally everybody can stop you and not just people with stickers on their cars and a badge on their lapel, the risk becomes so great that most criminals will begrudgingly adapt by way of trying to co-exist. It's like welfare. If you stopped welfare today, how many more people would be looking for jobs that currently aren't? You know what, i read the link and now i know. Its the first time i have ever read of someone stopping a mass shooting and its amazing that they dont get more publicity. Here i will admit i was wrong, having a gun could prevent mass shooting. Guess you learn something new everyday. It's great that you can admit you were wrong. But have you made any effort to address HOW you came to be wrong? What would no gun ever stopping a mass shooting prove? Most of these mass shootings take place in "gun free zones." Does this pattern not mean anything? Also, there's no reason to be surprised that the media doesn't report it anymore that you have reason to be surprised that your lawnmower doesn't also wash your dishes. That's not its purpose.
Guest Gee Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 We might be neighbours then! South Woodford?
AccuTron Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 ...So car manufacturers started including seat belts. Then air bags. Then new frame designs. This all happened amid a State. Imagine how much they could've accomplished and how much more efficiently without the State. This one got my attention. On their own, Big Detroid (I kinda like the typo) made unsafe, unwieldy monsters, however fun. I forget how much was private (Ralph Nader for ex.), vs. State, but it took a lot of effort to get those seat belts and padded dashboards, and it was the State that made it happen. Consumers may choose, but not if nobody is offering choices. Consumers may now guide design decisions (skipping the details of how well informed those decisions are), but long ago, consumers had no power on this, since Big Detroid put up a solid wall of obstruction. (This was before foreign autos -- and choice -- carried much punch in the marketplace.) Fashion yes, safety no. Could seat belts and padded dashboards have evolved on their own in response to consumer demand? Perhaps, but it wasn't happening, and didn't seem like it would, until the State stepped in, in response to public outcry. Would Detroid have responded on it's own with a little more time (and lack of significant foreign competition)? I don't know. It didn't seem like their mindset. For the record, I cringe at the State of California's attitude on many regulations w/o full scientific honesty, and I'm not waving State pom-poms in general.
ResidingOnEarth Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 Consumers may choose, but not if nobody is offering choices. Consumers may now guide design decisions (skipping the details of how well informed those decisions are), but long ago, consumers had no power on this, since Big Detroid put up a solid wall of obstruction. Fashion yes, safety no. If people really want and prioritize safety for themselves and their family and friends then they will purchase the safest vehicle (that also fits their other criteria). If all vehicles are very unsafe, some will still be safer than others. People prioritizing safety will pick the safest option. Car manufacturers -- driven largely by profit and therefore demand -- will look for ways to provide better cars. "Better", means that it satisfies market demand better than their previous cars and better than the competition. There are plenty of ways businesses can ascertain what the market demand is (eg surveys and analysis of sales trends). So: car manufacturers will discover there is a demand for safer cars and then invest in research and development of safer cars. People will buy those safer cars. Other manufacturers will follow suit. No government needed. If people don't want safer vehicles and perhaps heavily prioritize low price or high performance over safety, then manufacturers will not make safer vehicles. If the government then forces manufacturers to build safer vehicles then they are forcing them to produce vehicles that people do not want. No government wanted. I ride a motorcycle. I have no airbags, no crumple zone, no padded dash, no steel roll cage, no ABS, no traction control and no seatbelts. If I have a high speed collision it's not going to be pretty. This is my choice though. I have chosen performance, practicality (road congestion doesn't really affect me), fun and low running costs over the safety of a car. I'm not the only one who has made this set of choices. In fact there are lots of us. As such manufacturers produce 2 wheeled machines that satisfy our demand. My demands and the demands of those that want safety are not mutually exclusive. Vehicle manufacturers cater for both demands. This is my understanding of how the market works... and it really does... work. No need for violence to augment it.
dsayers Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 You cannot have a monopoly without a State. So if consumers want something, then manufacturers will respond or lose market share to competitors that will. Even if it were true that something beneficial came to be because of State mandate, this doesn't prove that violence is the only way to accomplish that goal. As I see it, the only thing you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence is violence.
fractional slacker Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 UK is one of the most violent countries in the world. They just use knives and fists so they don't get much media attention like the US gun stuff.
Recommended Posts