If someone (with supernatural powers or some crazy shit) walked and told you they would give you the following choice:
"You have two options to choose from, and your choice will become a reality. You can A: have 1000 people, who would otherwise live long happy lives, die violent deaths over the course of 1 year.
Or B: You can choose for 150 people to die a violent death all at once. If you do not choose, I will kill you, and as a bonus, 10,000 other people immediately. Choose your ownnnn adventuuuuure!"
Which would you choose?
This is not a random question. It's a parallel to how we react to situations has a real world effect on our day to day lives.
I refuse to vote!
1) I don’t have to
2) I don’t want to
See I do have a choice. This is like a random game. Supernatural powers in politics? Where are we? I can not draw a parallel to the real world here sorry. (is there one?)
...but, if I were playing a game, and someone was telling me a decision made in the game would cause such an event to occur, I would go with answer B because it would be saving 850 lifes assuming of course that was the objective of the game.
I'd refuse to vote as well. So I'd basically tell this wizard to take a hike.
Without any additional information I would go for B because I think killing less is often better than killing more. One year more doesn't make much difference in my opinion. It's just one year.
As I understand it there is no difference in the amount of suffering between the two options. If one option involved a long period of suffering I would probably go for the other option even if the number of deaths would be bigger because I think suffering and pain is worse than death. Torture is the worst thing there is.
If you paid attention to the question, you would have realized I was saying in that situation you would have no choice. Hypothetically if someone walks up to you and gives you those options at gun point, as well as informing you that if you don't choose one, they will kill 10k people instead, then you don't really have a choice right? Nope. No matter what you did, you would need to make a choice. Logically, yes, you do have a choice as to whether or not you have to make a choice on this thread since your life is not at risk. But again, hypothetically, what if you had no choice?
As for the supernatural powers, I was trying to create a situation where someone else has complete control over the situation. No matter what you do, this "person" has the ability to kill these people, and you, no matter what actions you or anyone else takes. Basically I involved the supernatural
to create an unstoppable force. You can't do anything about this entity giving you the choice. Again, it was to create a hypothetical situation where you have no other options besides those given to you.
Ok...now as for the point behind this question (which does not involve the supernatural :\):
This is actually about gun rights!
Are you aware that more people are killed by knives than assault rifles and shotguns combined? More people are killed with blunt objects (pipes or baseball bats) than either rifles or shotguns alone.
According to these stats, people are more likely to savagely beat you to death with their BARE HANDS than they are you murder you with an assault rifle. :\
How does this relate to my question? Well, when the government uses mass shootings as an example of why people shouldn't own assault rifles, they are ignoring the basic fact that more people are killed over time by handguns and pretty much every other means possible, than assault rifles. Handguns are what need regulated better if anything, not assault rifles. It seems shocking when a massacre happens, but when you present people with a parallel situation where a small group will be killed instantly at the same time, vs a large group being killed over time, people make the right choice. But the media and politicians like to rely on emotions rather than logic to come to their decisions.
Should we regulate knives when people are almost guaranteed to kill AT LEAST roughly 1700 people?
BTW...isn't this a ****** up thing...look at the year by year stats and notice how reliably you can predict year to year how many people are going to be murdered with a certain weapon type.
That is ****** up. Anyways, again, in that light, handguns are the real issue, not rifles of ANY TYPE.
Taking this stuff into account, how can we attack rifle owners, when yes, rifles are convenient to have during a mass shooting, but fewer people are killed by them compared to people beat to death with fists and feet? Just because lot's of people can be killed by them quickly does not make them a larger threat than handguns/knives. :\
I revised the question...pls take a look.
Thanks for telling me what the topic is about. I can understand what you mean by not having much choice and agree with you it doesn’t need to be supernatural just a lunatic with a gun. My answer is the same though which is comparable to not negotiating with terrorists. These guys can not be reasoned with or trusted so what is the point of choosing.
Not responding would have the same effect and I am giving the logical reason that regardless of what you say they will do what they want anyway since they are in complete control. I think we always have a choice even if it is do the right thing but I can agree some choices are really lousy.
On guns and gun control. I do agree that the problem of violence is more complex than just having gun controls but think it can be a step in the right direction. In my view it is not a matter of comparing statistics to other acts of violence. Even if a regulation saved one life it would be worth it.
Some very brave senators in the USA today are looking for solutions and open to a better one than they already now have. Right now they want federal background checks for all new gun sales. This does not conflict with the right to bear arms nor will it stop responsible gun owners from having guns. Criminals, terrorists and the mentally disturbed will be the ones screened.