Global Warming vs Gun Control

[Pinemarten]

Has anyone else ever thought of combining resources?

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=367

[Maha Vailo]

So, what you're trying to say is to forget about gun control and focus on global warming instead?

- Maha Vailo

[Pinemarten]

No.

This is more the point.

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=372

Quote:

Social issues such as GW and violence control are fine, but do the math before the pulpit.

[MrClean]

I thought he was linking the fact that all the gun laws in the world won't stop a criminal just like Global socialism won't change natural climate change, even if you say 'Everybody Knows' a gazillion times.

[Pinemarten]

Actually a point I'm trying to make is that I don't mind my tax dollars being spent on any 'reasonable' cause.
I just feel that taxes should only pay 'their' share of 'reasonable' programs.

[AstralSpirit]

Maqybe we should just forget about both for now and concentrate on taking better care of each other.

[Pinemarten]

Maqybe we should just forget about both for now and concentrate on taking better care of each other.

Good thought.

Hug your neighbour often. No cost, no controversy, and will probably do a lot more good than people think.

[Michael Noonan]

Even without mentioning sides, it is hard to describe the nature of the progression of nations without sounding a bit contoversial.


Moral choices are the hardest ones. Any government is just the caretaker for the assets built up for the people by their forebears. So it should run at a modest profit and return the bulk of it in the form of services and environment should have the same priority as military.

Here in Australia it is government by the people for the people, bought and paid for by business. The assets when profitable are then sold at a fraction of their worth to business and they are then run at a minimal service maintenaince level at maximised profit until all of the initial asset value is spent.

The economical thing is then a fire sale and what was considered once an essential service is gone. At this rate of loss the ownership of value added assets taxpayers pay for will be in time non-existent, I wonder if at that time we will still be required to pay taxes for nothing in return.

Cheers

P.S. and don't get me started on justice.

[Swift]

Actually a point I'm trying to make is that I don't mind my tax dollars being spent on any 'reasonable' cause.
I just feel that taxes should only pay 'their' share of 'reasonable' programs.

I really don't get your point, particularly about guns and global warming, but I think this discussion is pushing the political limits of the forum - just some friendly advice.

[LurchGS]

I really don't get your point, particularly about guns and global warming, but I think this discussion is pushing the political limits of the forum - just some friendly advice.

It probably is edging into political minefields, but I *think* the question was "which should we be spendig our money on?" Cannukia spends $4xx per unit on gun control, and $30 per head on a much more prevalent "problem", and this seems backwards.

I hope I got that right.

[Pinemarten]

I really don't get your point, particularly about guns and global warming, but I think this discussion is pushing the political limits of the forum - just some friendly advice.

Deja vu. My previous response didn't seem to log.
I seem to remember responding in the following way:

Advice taken.

I did not intend this thread to be political.
Please avoid politics in this thread.

Countering a GW will be the most expensive undertaking ever faced by man. Think of the movie/book "Contact" and start multiplying.

Any cost will be lower the sooner we start.

There will be many plans to counter a GW, and we may need most of them; big, small, and the ferrets.

The main issue will be funding.

Funding and politics are closely related. The higher the funding the closer the politics.
To increase the funding, increase the political pressure. The pressure must be applied in the right place, and to the right extent. Too much and....?

We have some tough decisions now, and they will get tougher in the future.
I just hope we make the best decisions with the best information.

[Jens]

Hug your neighbour often. No cost, no controversy, and will probably do a lot more good than people think.

I think that might depend on where and how the hugging it taking place. But I won't go any further, as this is a family-oriented board.

[Pinemarten]

It probably is edging into political minefields, but I *think* the question was "which should we be spendig our money on?" Cannukia spends $4xx per unit on gun control, and $30 per head on a much more prevalent "problem", and this seems backwards.

I hope I got that right.

Partially correct.

We have spent that money on violence control as a 'knee-jerk' law to get votes.
We are in the process of scrapping that law, mainly because of cost. The law, and the decision to remove it, were both election issues; and democratically decided. In the meantime (6-10 years) taxes and fees were spent on it.
I hope future funding decisions are made with the best information.

The $30 figure is a cost estimate from a viable plan to remove CO2 from the air:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=57672

[Launch window]

GlobalWarming is one of those things that should be answerable by science, if the left and right hadn't distorted this subject for their cause. I think it is still one of those subjects good people and our real scientists can answer.

IMO GunControl is too close to politics and should not be discussed on this forum, the topic just gets too emotional or political

[Pinemarten]

GlobalWarming is one of those things that should be answerable by science, if the left and right hadn't distorted this subject for their cause. I think it is still one of those subjects good people and our real scientists can answer.

IMO GunControl is too close to politics and should not be discussed on this forum, the topic just gets too emotional or political

I agree with all of the above.

All the answers are provided by good, scientific people.
The funding and 'solutions' are political.

Gun control is political.
Violence control is not.

Stating that 'controlling guns controls violence', is political.

Stating that 'controlling violence controls violence' is moot.

If we control the violence, then we will control the violence; and then have funding left over for science.

[Jens]

Gun control is political.
Violence control is not.

Really? Gun control is political, sure. But violence control is not? Saying, "I wish there were less violence" or praying for less violence is not. But if you're going to do anything about it, then it's absolutely political. If you want to control guns, that's political. If you want to change the educational system to teach non-violence, that's political. If you want to impose the death penalty on people who commit any form of violence, that's political.

[Pinemarten]

Really? Gun control is political, sure. But violence control is not? Saying, "I wish there were less violence" or praying for less violence is not. But if you're going to do anything about it, then it's absolutely political. If you want to control guns, that's political. If you want to change the educational system to teach non-violence, that's political. If you want to impose the death penalty on people who commit any form of violence, that's political.

One can wish, one can pray, or one can change.
Do you mean changing it in schools, in the home, or in media?

Changing the education system is always political.
Changing it by changing the law is more political.

Death is death.
A penalty for it is too late.

[Pinemarten]

There is a best-selling book that used to be a lot more popular than it is now.
It used to be required reading in many schools, and it is full of violence.
Smite this, smite that, sacrifices, genocide etc.
No guns though.

[MrClean]

Yes, but we stopped requiring mythology as a taught subject years ago.

[Maksutov]

Some OPs are science.

Other OPs are pseudoscience.

Then others are head scratchers.

This thread seems to fall into a close encounter of the third kind.

[Pinemarten]

Some OPs are science.

Other OPs are pseudoscience.

Then others are head scratchers.

This thread seems to fall into a close encounter of the third kind.

I am sorry for not providing more information in the OP.

I am involved in other threads where some of these points are brought up.
I didn't want to cut/paste those other points to avoid something that may be misconstrued as 'double-threading'.

I could post a links to all the threads, but most of the points have been brought up here already.