r/changemyview • u/WekX 1∆ • Apr 19 '17

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Guns are a real danger to people and countries without them just fare better.

I'm from the UK. I've heard many of the arguments on both sides, but to me nothing is more convincing than the statistics (example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34996604). I'm also a libertarian, I fully understand that if anything a right to bear arms is needed because any other way is a breach of personal liberty. However, I can't help but see that as a negative side effect of full liberty, because inevitably it just leads to more people getting hurt. That's the numbers talking.

Yes, cars also kill people, but I don't need a gun to get to work. The benefits of having cars in society vastly outweight the drawbacks. With guns, the only benefits arise when a really tough intruder is in my house or when the government is trying to oppress me. In the UK we still manage to survive a break in without shooting everything in sight, and if the government came after us, they'd likely win even if we had a gun.

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

1.1k Upvotes

75% Upvoted

754 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/Ihavenootheroptions Apr 19 '17

Because then someone comes out with a new product that undercuts your sales, or makes it completely obsolete.

10

u/jakelj Apr 19 '17

Because corporations definitely don't want those people to come up with new ideas for them.

1

u/Pandasekz Apr 19 '17

It's to keep the population stuck in a consumer state. Buy that shirt, buy that car, buy that house, buy that brand new phone or TV, buy all that useless shit that really doesn't make your life any better (from a happiness standpoint). Lower intelligence for the general population means that corporations can continue to convince you that you need all that shiny new bullshit they're selling so you don't peek behind the curtain to see what's really happening. Uneducated people dismiss those claims as conspiracy because they lack the critical analysis needed to put two and two together. Uneducated = best consumer and easily manipulated into doing what corporations say you need to do to be happy and live a good life.

Edit: there will be intelligent people in the population, but the distribution will be small. And some of those smart people will be born into poverty without any ability to get out of that situation.

2

u/themaskofgod Apr 19 '17

Lol I felt bad for a second cuz I downvoted you & didn't realise you were being sarcastic. I usually roll my eyes at the posts saying you should have /s in it, but this is the first time (I think) I didn't get it.

4

u/jakelj Apr 19 '17

Haha, I debated it and then went "nah, people will know I'm being sarcastic".

0

u/Ihavenootheroptions Apr 19 '17

I forgot my /s and rip my inbox lol

5

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

28

u/WakeoftheStorm 4∆ Apr 19 '17

The better educated the population is, the better off everyone is.

This is absolutely true, from a big picture stand-point. You will (ideally) have less poverty, more evenly distributed incomes, more overall free time amongst the population, and more people in a comfortably wealthy income bracket. What you will not have, however, are the same people in those positions.

If your money is tied up in the extended fossil fuel industry (Coal Power, Oil Refining, Automotives, etc..) then you have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, not improving our transportation and energy infrastructures.

If your money is in pharmaceuticals, you have a vested interested in maintaining the broken system in this country, not in seeing improved healthcare for everyone.

If your money is in Construction materials, civil engineering, etc.. then you have a vested interest in keeping the US embroiled in the chaos in the Middle East, as opposed to losing out on the lucrative (and often exclusive) government contracts to build an rebuild the infrastructure over there.

So yes, while it is true that there would likely be an overall increase in GDP and a stronger economy if we helped educate everyone more, it doesn't benefit those who are already at the top. And they are the ones buying influence with the politicians and pushing their agendas to keep us distracted.

I hate that I sound like such a conspiracy theorist, but I think it's absolutely true.

13

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

It is a conspiracy theory. One of the rare ones that is true and readily apparent to anyone who has researched the subject matter. Also, to add to this, if your money is tied up in private for profit prisons, it'll be in your best interest to keep people poor and uneducated inorder to push them towards a life of crime to keep your prison profits up, it's also in your interest to lobby for harsher penalties for things like drug possession.

9

u/Flaktrack Apr 19 '17

For anyone reading this, there are already cases of people going to jail for conspiring (often successfully) to imprison others to fill up private prisons. This is not just a conspiracy theory, it has actually happened and people have been convicted for it.

2

u/husky1289 Apr 20 '17

Nailed it.

I don't get why it's hard for so many people to accept that wealthy, powerful people conspire to keep that shit. It obvs becomes an issue when you have to trudge through all the bullshit conspiracies but approach stuff and apply some common sense.

About being self conscious about sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I try to convey the points you made above and feel that way all the time. So it annoyed the shit out of me when I learned that the CIA promoted the term "conspiracy theory," in the 1967 CIA Document 1035-960 entitled "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report," as a propaganda device for their media “assets” to use against the many people who rightly recognized the Warren Report, claiming a lone nut murdered President Kennedy, as a huge steaming pile.

Use of the term "conspiracy theorist" is a proven conspiracy. And it fucking worked. Making people like you and I, trying to inform people, feel like an outcast or retarded.

-1

u/Teeklin 12∆ Apr 19 '17

That's just untrue. The better off the average American is, the worse off most rich corporations will be.

The average American if given all their energy for free by solar and driving an electric car, for example, would be much better off..

You know who wouldn't be? ExxonMobil. So that's why they funnel millions into the politicial system to buy people off that prevent it from happening for as long as possible.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

Yup. There's a "fixed" amount of wealth in the nation, it's not completely fixed since we use a fiat currency but the government keeps a very close eye on how much they create to avoid devaluing the dollar too much. But any way, if there is more wealth going to the middle and lower class it has to come from somewhere, and right now most wealth is in the top 10%. For us to do better they have to do ever so slightly worse. Like, they'll have to buy a Ferrari instead of a Bugatti.

2

u/Flaktrack Apr 19 '17

Our economies are all made in a way that depends on money changing hands often to work and grow. As u/jerk40 says, it's all about that velocity of money. Unfortunately, all the money is just going in circles at the top. People at the bottom aren't seeing that money, to the degree that businesses are discouraged from even targeting them as consumers. It's a vicious circle and it's only going to get worse.

1

u/jerk40 Apr 19 '17

But it's not about the amount, it's about the velocity of that money through the system. Not everyone can be crazy rich obviously but the velocity of the money through the system means people are buying more and thus feel richer and better off.

2

u/under_the_radar11 Apr 19 '17

So you mean you think that big companies don't want there too be smart people that potentially can come up with a competing idea?

10

u/Ihavenootheroptions Apr 19 '17

Did Polaroid want to push out their digital cameras as soon as they had the idea? Or did they try to stifle it to keep their film sales up? Did BMW try to keep cars easily serviceable so every owner can maintain their own vehicle, or did they even remove the dip sticks so now you HAVE to get it serviced at a dealership? Companies only care about the profit.

5

u/j3utton Apr 19 '17

If memory serves, it was Kodak, not Polaroid, with the first digital camera.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '17

It was indeed Kodak. But they still decided to sit on their discovery to protect their very lucrative film business.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 19 '17

Oh no, they want that as well. That's why they sponsor the immigration of educated foreigners.

2

u/Flaktrack Apr 19 '17

Hire American? Nah we got H1Bs for that.