-31

Out of concern for the presidents safety it's time we turn the White House into a gun free zone, amirite?

35%Yeah You Are65%No Way
miffedmuffins avatar Politics
Share
2 26
The voters have decided that miffedmuffin is wrong! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

It's sarcastic, for anyone who doesn't pick up on it. Like ya know, that's somehow going to work for civilians but not the president becaaaause why? Oh yeah criminals will find ways to get guns and who wants to be left without protection hmm?

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are +11Reply
@miffedmuffin It's sarcastic, for anyone who doesn't pick up on it. Like ya know, that's somehow going to work for civilians but...

And because the president is ideally supposed to be a citizen who represents our country. There's no reason any president should have special privileges above citizens.

StickCavemans avatar StickCaveman Yeah You Are +3Reply
@StickCaveman And because the president is ideally supposed to be a citizen who represents our country. There's no reason any...

um, yeah there is. The president is our executive leader, people will try to assassinate him. We need the president to keep Congress in check, to preside over regulatory affairs and the bureaucracy, and for just about all foreign affairs. So not only is he vulnerable to assassination, but he's incredibly important to the country. Plus, there are qualifications you need to meet to be president, no random citizen can become president.

Anonymous 0Reply
@StickCaveman And because the president is ideally supposed to be a citizen who represents our country. There's no reason any...

This totally dodges the point entirely. The point being, there will always be a threat of criminals with guns, to everyone. it's only realistic to have protection. The president deserves protection but we don't? hmm.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
@miffedmuffin It's sarcastic, for anyone who doesn't pick up on it. Like ya know, that's somehow going to work for civilians but...

I really hope you're not trying to say the President is vulnerable despite the fact that the White House is a gun free zone... Of 43 presidencies, only two presidents have been assassinated. Plus just because criminals will find ways to get guns doesn't make it a bad idea to implement gun control. Other countries laugh at America for our gun laws. For every one gun related death in Britain, there are FORTY in America. That says something.

Anonymous -1Reply
@I really hope you're not trying to say the President is vulnerable despite the fact that the White House is a gun...

Uh no. The White House is NOT a gun free zone...it's sarcasm. It says something that you literally had no idea the WH wasn't gun free haha.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -1Reply
@I really hope you're not trying to say the President is vulnerable despite the fact that the White House is a gun...

According to wiki, the US has 315 mega people where as the UK has 63 mega people. Already, we outnumber them 5 to 1. Re-scaling your death ratio, from where you go it I do not know, it becomes an 8 to 1.

Not only that, but your definition of gun related death isn't specified. An alcohol related car accident in the US (not sure which states in particular) is defined as an accident involving a car during which alcohol was present. It doesn't matter in what way, as long as the alcohol was present.

As emotionally stirring as your argument may be, that alone does not a credulous argument make.

@Kratosisterrifying According to wiki, the US has 315 mega people where as the UK has 63 mega people. Already, we outnumber them 5 to...

I have no idea what you are talking about. What death ratio? What definition of gun related death? I think you're reading the wrong post.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -1Reply

Yeah. Sure. Because everyone has an equal chance of facing assassination.

@lana Yeah. Sure. Because everyone has an equal chance of facing assassination.

Obviously not as assassinations cannot happen to everyone as the very definition of the word assassination is the murder of an important person. However, everyone does have a pretty equal chance for something becoming a threat to their safety.

@Frank_n_Furter Obviously not as assassinations cannot happen to everyone as the very definition of the word assassination is the...

Basically yeah. Somehow gun free zones work for us, but not the president? Yeah cause there will always be a threat.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
@miffedmuffin Basically yeah. Somehow gun free zones work for us, but not the president? Yeah cause there will always be a threat.

To each their own eh?

The two countries I have lived in have pretty strict gun laws and civilians can't own weaponry of the same caliber as in the USA if an y. They both also have significantly lower rates of random gun violence. So, to me, the best way to reduce gun violence is to reduce the number of guns that are out on the streets rather than increasing them in the name of protection.

@lana To each their own eh? The two countries I have lived in have pretty strict gun laws and civilians can't own...

The way to stop the random killings is not only to pay attention to our mentally ill, but to also address the media attention. They are treated as celebrities and others copy. Taking away civil liberties that avoid tyranny is not the answer.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
@miffedmuffin The way to stop the random killings is not only to pay attention to our mentally ill, but to also address the media...

To you, gun ownership is a right but to me, it's a privilege. Therefore, from my perspective, gun laws don't really take away civil liberties. I only need my fellow citizen's support to avoid tyrannical governments, not an assault weapon. That may sound too idealistic to you but hey, so does the right to bear arms.

@lana To you, gun ownership is a right but to me, it's a privilege. Therefore, from my perspective, gun laws don't really...

Freedom is too idealistic? That's ridiculous. We were based on freedom as a country, it's what we stand for, it's what we wanted and came here
for originally. I'm not giving up my freedoms so easily. Besides, what are a bunch of people going to do against a Government who is slowly taking away their rights? It's a slippery slope.

Wise words of Jefferson, those willing to give up liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
@miffedmuffin Freedom is too idealistic? That's ridiculous. We were based on freedom as a country, it's what we stand for, it's...

things that are considered basic freedoms are not universal. where I live, carrying a gun is not a right. it does not constitute our definition of freedom. this is true for most of the civilized world. (and just for the record, to me, we are a lot more free than americans because we can't be randomly held in secret locations just for being suspected terrorists or whatever.)

@Frank_n_Furter Obviously not as assassinations cannot happen to everyone as the very definition of the word assassination is the...

The probability of everyone's life being endangered by random violence is equal. But people involved in gangs, politics, etc. run an additional risk of being targeted. The probabilities of these two instances where their life may be in danger is added to find the net probability of someone needing protection. So statistically speaking, the president does run a higher risk of being killed by a violent attacker and thus needs more protection.

This is similar to how in time of epidemics, health care workers run a higher risk of contracting illnesses.

@lana The probability of everyone's life being endangered by random violence is equal. But people involved in gangs...

Sure, no denying that. That speaks nothing of the very real threat to everyday people, whether it's less than a president or politician seems pretty moot. There will always be a threat as long as guns and criminals exist, and I don't see either disappearing anytime soon. It's just realistic to have protection.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
@lana The probability of everyone's life being endangered by random violence is equal. But people involved in gangs...

The president has a higher chance than ONE person, but there are MANY people and ONE president.

People who don't work in health care get the same health care as people who do.

@Frank_n_Furter The president has a higher chance than ONE person, but there are MANY people and ONE president. People who don't...

actually, they don't. in time of epidemics, when a cure is a discovered, it is given to health care workers on a priority basis since they are at a higher risk of being infected.

Edit: I said it as if it were universally true but it's not. Priority treatment doesn't occur in every country but does in a lot of them and discussions of priority treatment have been on the table ever since SARS in pretty much every single country because of numerous instances where healthcare workers contracted the virus and then passed it on to everyone who visited them in the following week.

@lana Yeah. Sure. Because everyone has an equal chance of facing assassination.

That's completely moot. Main point, criminals will get guns and they know that. If criminals will still get guns, what does that mean for us? That there will be criminals with guns and innocent civilians without protection.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -1Reply
@miffedmuffin That's completely moot. Main point, criminals will get guns and they know that. If criminals will still get guns...

And yes, criminals will still get weapons but the less weapons there are on the streets, the lower are the chances that they will get their hands on one.

Additionally, there are more instances of ramdom shootings in the US than there are of positive gun violence by civilians. When it comes to protection, civilians are just as dependant on the police with or without guns. Guns are more of a means for assurances, that's all.

@lana And yes, criminals will still get weapons but the less weapons there are on the streets, the lower are the chances...

That only takes them away from law abiding citizens who wouldn't go buy one illegally. Lets just give gangs more incentive to smuggle in guns bc they are illegal or hard to get. That's pure logic. The drug problem here is absurd, drugs are super easy to get. Why? Because they are illegal and smuggled into the country in mass amounts. Logically, if that happened with guns, we've got criminals with easy access to guns, and law abiding citizens with no protection. Doesn't make sense. It makes us vulnerable for no good reason.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
@miffedmuffin That only takes them away from law abiding citizens who wouldn't go buy one illegally. Lets just give gangs more...

There really is no point in continuing this discussion because you seem to consider carrying guns as a basic human right whereas I do not.

@lana There really is no point in continuing this discussion because you seem to consider carrying guns as a basic human...

The freedom to protect oneself is every humans right. Putting up a sign that says "no guns" is something a five year would come up with. It's nonsensical and I'm beyond surprised so many adults don't see the major flaw.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.