Another day, another shooting in the US

[Hagane]

The essential function of a gun is to displace mass.

To kill or hurt something. No matter how many bullshit excuses you spout to justify your hard-on for guns it won't change their nature and what they are mostly used for. If you want to do some target practice you can use airguns or go play fucking Time Crisis.

[Friendly]

The essential function of a gun is to displace mass.

This sounds like a post by someone whose head's essential function is to serve as a counterweight, or maybe as a place to store a hat, or perhaps as a bottle opener.

[Ex-Cyber]

The essential function of a gun is to displace mass. The bullet is propelled out of the barrel by the primer. This manifests itself 100% of the time (according to the word of people in this thread and nothing else) as a mountain of dead children.

Does that mean Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son of a bitch in space?

[greg]

The essential function of a gun is to displace mass.

To kill or hurt something. No matter how many bullshit excuses you spout to justify your hard-on for guns it won't change their nature and what they are mostly used for. If you want to do some target practice you can use airguns or go play fucking Time Crisis.

Both you and ncc are correct. (Except for the Time Crisis/airguns part. Just comparing toys to a real gun indicates that you don't know what it's like to shoot a real gun. It's like comparing a real sword to a plastic Power Rangers sword at K-Mart.) Yes, guns were invented to be a weapon to kill and are generally intended to kill animals and to kill people. ncc's point is that this isn't the reason why most people buy them. I've owned two .22 rifles in my lifetime, given to me by my dad. (I rarely ever used them, and I didn't really care if I owned them or not.) The first one was a semi-automatic (meaning that I could just pull the trigger to fire without the need to cock it again), and the second one was as scoped bolt action rifle. Neither one is very effective for self-defense, and neither one is really designed for killing people or animals effectively (although I've murdered my fair share of pine cones.) Those are mainly designed, in my opinion, for target practice without a lot of noise. The vast majority of Americans buy guns legally for self defense or sport. Not many people go hunting at all, relatively speaking. Even those who would like to hunt usually don't get to, since they often have to wait years for the privilege of obtaining an elk hunting permit and the like.

You guys are so worked up and angry at ncc because for all of his straight facts, you guys can only counter with philosophy, opinions, and feelings. For those who think that banning "assault weapons" (a purely arbitrary term designed to scare normaltards, but I'm sure none of you even bothered to click the informative link that ncc provided on that) is effective, he has provided statistics showing that the temporary ban on such "assault weapons" made no impact on gun crime whatsoever. None of these horrible school shootings since Colombine have been done with so-called "assault weapons." The kids just brought more clips.

Hagane, at least for you specifically, since you live in Argentina, if you had bothered to read the stats on the link I had provided, you would see that Argentina actually slightly beats the homicide by gun rate of the USA, 3.02% to 2.97%, yet Agentina's gun ownership is only 10.2% vs the USA's whopping 88.8%!

For those of you who think that a ban on every single gun in America is going to solve the problems, again, this is totally ridiculous. Too little, too late. The bad guys will always get a hold of guns. For those of you who think that severely limiting the number of gun ownership in the US is going to make the problem better, that has already also been refuted using facts (not opinions or feelings).

I am very happy to now live in a country where there are no guns. However, America just cannot ever become like that. It is too vast of a country, it isn't some small, island nation like England or Japan and it shares a very huge border with Mexico. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens actually helps to keep crime in check. Remember the crazy shooter in the Portland, Oregon mall who opened fire on unsuspecting people? At the time, I thought it was strange that he only killed two people in a mall full of Christmas shoppers. It takes some digging to find out that an armed, law-abiding civilian with a concealed firearm permit was able to hold the killer at gunpoint until the police arrived. Taking away that guy's right to carry a gun would have resulted with only more people murdered before Christmas.

You guys can call ncc immoral and stupid all you want, but obviously he is the only one using facts in this argument, instead of opinions, feelings, lame jokes, and personal insults. This thread really only boils down to non-Americans using these school shootings to mock the country and feel smug about yourselves. The reality is, everyone's shit stinks. You just don't realize how badly your shit stinks until you distance yourself from it for a while.

[NTSC-J]

Has anyone on this forum known someone who had their mass displaced by a firearm? I remember once in high school some kid brought his mass displacement tool, but it was never implemented.

[drauch]

Yeah, good thing we have ncc to tell us all about physics. Otherwise this thread would be going nowhere. One might say it has no gravity? The plot thickens!

[greg]

I admit going down that overly technical tangent isn't really helping anything much.

[CMoon]

But let us seriously consider this assertion.

So I would say that a firearm is a tool used mainly for killing animals of about deer size or smaller (or bigger depending on the weapon). What about this is problematic for you?

It's a exaggeration based on pacifism, therefore not discussion worthy since I agree it's an invalid assertion when taken in the literal.

Guns are good for killing things, I relent.

The interesting question to me is how many people who own guns are actually hunters, and if they aren't hunters, then I imagine it is for 'home security', but statistically it has been shown that owning a gun makes you more likely to be killed in home invasion. Even the idea of an armed public against the government makes little sense when the public cannot come together in unity and the government do not exist as a singular entity to be fought against. And seriously, can you imagine fighting against the military with your gun...are you even fucking serious???

It is ironic to me that we have been stigmatized against bombs (terrorists) but not guns (patriots.) Assault rifles are effectively no different than bombs--they serve the exact same function, and rather than argue against the right to own high capacity rifles, I'd rather argue for the right to own bombs. I mean, let's suppose you see a whole herd of deer and you've got children to feed, right? Even one grenade might not do. Why not use a bomb? As a nearly incompetent shmupper I use bombs regularly and am not a terrorist.

Bombs are not for killing people, they are for erasing bullet spam and generating a large scale chemical reaction. As an American citizen I don't even know what fucking amendment were on, but I am calling for a new amendment for the right to bare/bear bombs. Yes, I said it, Bear Bombs.

Edit: Drauch, this is the 'I'm Drunk' thread, right?

[neorichieb1971]

Guns are a bit like alcohol because they are both glamorized and do harmful things. If you mix the two you turn the responsibile gun owner into a potential "massacrist". This scenario is not taken into consideration by the seller of the gun.

If guns were only picked up in self defense I would agree guns were needed. But the fact is most that are shot are abusing the purpose/reasoning behind owning one. All this BS you hide behind to protect your rights is just nonsensical. During 911 about 3500+ people died. Its only 3500+ people. But EVERYTHING WAS DONE to prevent that from happening ever again. Why? Because America felt threatened from a foreign or terrorist threat. Because the 3500+ people are totally unimportant statistics, because its only 3500+ people right? More deaths happen from guns in Guatimala or where ever it is your comparing the US to.

America cannot be totally free when half want a gun free nation and half want it totally saturated to the hilt with firearms of all descriptions. It seems then, that someone has to hate. I just hope its not the man (or woman) with a gun.

[CMoon]

[Skykid]

gif

Funniest gif ever. I find myself curious about its origin.

[neorichieb1971]

Then kill all the people that make guns.

[BryanM]

Funniest gif ever. I find myself curious about its origin.

You know we have the internet now.

Btw: The puppy in the Advice Dog macro? His name is Boba Fett.

Bonus cat: Splendid like a friar, give you my desire.

[Skykid]

Funniest gif ever. I find myself curious about its origin.

You know we have the internet now.

Not that gif, mesh control's on the previous page.

[ncc]

To kill or hurt something. No matter how many bullshit excuses you spout to justify your hard-on for guns it won't change their nature and what they are mostly used for

Not true. Actually only about 8500 guns in the US were used to kill anyone in 2011. Considering that this is only about 0.00002741935% of the ~310,000,000 guns in America, most guns in America are used to not kill people. In fact with numbers that low, guns are pretty shit at killing people. In 2009 there were 254,212,610 registered motor vehicles in America, and there were 33,808 motor vehicle related deaths. This comes out to 1 death per 0.00013299104%. I don't know if you'll count, but there's one less zero leading that number. Cars in America are ~mathematically~ way more likely to kill a human than any gun in America. Intentions only matter so much.

If you want to do some target practice you can use airguns or go play fucking Time Crisis.

As greg* so kindly explained for me, these aren't the same experiences. Not by a long shot, but if you had ever even held a real gun in your hands before you would probably know that.

The essential function of a gun is to displace mass.

May I inquire, then, which particular type of mass does one primarily acquire a gun to "displace"?

Paper, mostly. Sometimes water bottles or soda cans.

May I also inquire what other type of "tool" can be obtained as easily as a gun can be, which is even a fraction as effective at "mass displacement" as it is?

A common hammer? That's more than 4 times the required force to shatter a human skull, and over 40% more than the muzzle energy of a .22LR pistol. In a practice it's even higher since the energy decreases as the bullet travels. Of course this doesn't matter, but I have to go into it anyway because everybody missed the point I was making with that paragraph.

I made a claim that cars and guns are identical functionally by twisting facts and ignoring logic to suit my needs, then used that claim to support an argument that is grossly exaggerated (cars have a 100% crash rate and always kill everyone involved). If literally any of you had read the first sentence where I declared my intent to make a stupid argument, we wouldn't still be talking about cars.

The interesting question to me is how many people who own guns are actually hunters, and if they aren't hunters, then I imagine it is for 'home security', but statistically it has been shown that owning a gun makes you more likely to be killed in home invasion.

This statistic includes suicides and negligent discharges, which skews the statistic to the point of being worthless. In 2010, two-thirds of the 30,470 gun-related deaths in America are suicides (why aren't you armchair crusaders up in a tizzy over that?). That is an astronomical figure that can skew any data point in your favor if you can weasel it in.

Even the idea of an armed public against the government makes little sense when the public cannot come together in unity

Gun owners seem to be rallying pretty well against asinine gun legislation, so I don't see your point.

and the government do not exist as a singular entity to be fought against.

Who said we would be fighting the government as a whole? Despite what most Americans say, not every politician deserves to be shot.

And seriously, can you imagine fighting against the military with your gun...are you even fucking serious???

Do you even know anyone in the US military? A majority of them are very pro-gun. Every single friend I know serving has openly stated that if it came to blows over the 2nd amendment they would defect in an instant and steal as much shit as they could when they did. Over a thousand green berets publicly signed a letter re-affirming their duty to the constitution and the people. Even law enforcement elements have declared that they side with the people. I don't know where you got the idea that the military is on the federal government's side, because it's a pretty sketchy one.

It is ironic to me that we have been stigmatized against bombs (terrorists) but not guns (patriots.) Assault rifles are effectively no different than bombs-- they serve the exact same function,

If you're referring to my "mass displacement" paragraph then actually this is right. Explosives are often used specifically for displacing mass. Dynamite is used to clear rocks, demolish buildings or preemptively trigger avalanches, and even military explosives are often intended to do things like blow out walls and doors, or destroy equipment, rather than people.

and rather than argue against the right to own high capacity rifles, I'd rather argue for the right to own bombs.

It's less illegal than you might think. Look it up. RPGs and grenades are legal to own. Before you get your knickers in a twist over it

I mean, let's suppose you see a whole herd of deer and you've got children to feed, right? Even one grenade might not do. Why not use a bomb?

For one thing it's illegal. Hunting has so many laws it's crazy. Also it might spoil most of the meat if the explosion was too centralized, and what you did have left would be riddled with shrapnel, but to each his own.

Guns are a bit like alcohol because they are both glamorized and do harmful things. If you mix the two you turn the responsibile gun owner into a potential "massacrist". This scenario is not taken into consideration by the seller of the gun.

Sleeping pills aren't illegal because they can kill you if mixed with booze, and Ammonia isn't illegal even though hundreds of people are hospitalized every year for mixing it with bleach and accidentally poisoning themselves with Chlorine gas. You can't just arbitrarily tack two things together and claim you need to crack down on one because when mixed with the other it becomes potentially lethal.

If guns were only picked up in self defense I would agree guns were needed. But the fact is most that are shot are abusing the purpose/reasoning behind owning one.

See above (very top paragraph, in case you missed it) for why you are wrong.

All this BS you hide behind to protect your rights is just nonsensical.

At least you're calling them "rights" now. Rights need to be fought for; They are always under attack. It only takes a moment of carelessness and they can disappear forever. Anti-gun supporters are a vocal minority that collect around people like Piers Morgan and organizations like Brady Campaign, wailing about guns to anyone who will listen on a level they wouldn't normally be able to. If you need proof of this, look at this link explaining why over 90 sheriffs and 2 sheriff associations are pledging to ignore any further legislation from the Obama administration the numbers for the facebook pages of Brady Campaign and the National Rifle Association. The first is limping along with an anemic 55,000 likes, while the NRA enjoys the right to say that over 2 million people have liked them on Facebook.

During 911 about 3500+ people died. Its only 3500+ people. But EVERYTHING WAS DONE to prevent that from happening ever again. Why? Because America felt threatened from a foreign or terrorist threat. Because the 3500+ people are totally unimportant statistics, because its only 3500+ people right? More deaths happen from guns in Guatimala or where ever it is your comparing the US to.

I'm not sure why I'm even answering this, it's that stupid, but here it goes:

Since guns are the same as planes (which they obviously are, or you wouldn't be comparing them); why didn't the federal government ban certain planes based on arbitrary cosmetic features, such as leather seats, or specific paint jobs; impose a limit on the overall size of a plane (mass/length/wingspan/capacity/whatever) so that it would be impossible to topple an equally-sized building ever again; or make it illegal to carry more than a certain amount of fuel to reduce the chances of coast-to-coast attacks? All of these things have an equivalent in recent gun control discussions (ban all guns, ban 'assault features', limit magazine capacity). The obvious answer is that they would do very little to fix anything and severely hinder everyone.

America cannot be totally free when half want a gun free nation and half want it totally saturated to the hilt with firearms of all descriptions. It seems then, that someone has to hate. I just hope its not the man (or woman) with a gun.

I don't know where you got the idea that gun owners want to lynch every non-owning American. They're free to not own guns if they want, but we ask that they stay the hell out of gun politics if they don't know anything about them.

-=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-
THE END?



*Special thanks go out to greg, not necessarily for agreeing with or supporting me, but for not behaving like a howler monkey and actually reading my huge walls of text. You're a pretty swell guy.

[Hagane]

Not that gif, mesh control's on the previous page.

It's from The Three Stooges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y02rBLaJ5DQ#t=16m39s

Not true. Actually only about 8500 guns in the US were used to kill anyone in 2011. Considering that this is only about 0.00002741935% of the ~310,000,000 guns in America, most guns in America are used to not kill people. In fact with numbers that low, guns are pretty shit at killing people. In 2009 there were 254,212,610 registered motor vehicles in America, and there were 33,808 motor vehicle related deaths. This comes out to 1 death per 0.00013299104%. I don't know if you'll count, but there's one less zero leading that number. Cars in America are ~mathematically~ way more likely to kill a human than any gun in America. Intentions only matter so much.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if those guns haven't actually been used for their intended purpose because the situation in which they are useful hasn't presented yet, they are still meant to kill and hurt. They are a threat by nature, unlike a car which kills only if misused.

So, I go back at a previous point of mine. Why stop at guns? Let's allow free use of personal mines, rocket launchers and grenades too. I bet some people would enjoy using them without killing anybody for the sake of watching the explosions, or to blow rocks up or whatever. What's more important, some wacko having fun with tools meant to kill, or the possibility of them being used for what they were created for against innocent people?

[CMoon]

and rather than argue against the right to own high capacity rifles, I'd rather argue for the right to own bombs.

It's less illegal than you might think. Look it up. RPGs and grenades are legal to own.

All right! I got one person that is with me on keeping bombs legal, and hopefully pushing for the right to own 'higher capacity' bombs. I mean, every incident I can think of where a bad guy had a bomb could have been stopped by a good guy with a bomb.

[Hagane]

Imagine all the robberies that would be prevented if every citizen had a rocket launcher.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Pf9e-8sCY#t=35s

[mesh control]

I really wish ncc would stop trying to use technical physics terms.

[neorichieb1971]

Look... Its simple. Americans DO NOT have a minority report. Therefore you cannot predict in any sense whatsoever what the next day will bring. But common sense usually prevails (even in America) that if you put a lot of safety measures in place you can be safe from danger.

The USA is a very strange country.

Straight roads for 800 miles.. Top speed limit 55mph. Why don't you bitch about your rights to drive your 200mph cars 200mph?
A mother of 3 could potentially drink illegally because she is under the age of 21. Why not complain that since being a mother she has every right to drink alcohol legally?
Why do you build nuclear weapons and never shoot them, costing your country billions/trillions of dollars?
Why do you call a drive way somewhere you park and a parkway somewhere you drive?

Where the hell am I going with this?

America doesn't always make sense. Your basically putting guns in the hands of potential maniacs. That maniac has no God given right to hold a gun, look at a gun or even watch an 18 movie with guns in it. The probability of him/her buying a gun because he knows like minded maniacs is generally quite high. Because you would only buy a gun if your neighbourhood by definition is a place you need firearm protection.

If I met an American and went into his/her house and saw a gun. I could find out in 2 minutes if its loaded. By coming round 3 or 4 times I could learn where your bullets are kept. After just a few visits I could shoot you with that gun. Because you have it. Now all I have to do is go to a school after you leave the house empty and shoot the shit out of every kid until the bullets run out. America is making it VERY VERY VERY EASY for me to do this. All I have to do is go into deep depression and sink a bottle of JD, snort some coke beforehand and the world is mine. I am now officially on the rampage with a powerful tool to kill innocents.. Then i'll take my own life.. I made headline news. I became a statistic. God BLESS America.

[ncc]

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if those guns haven't actually been used for their intended purpose because the situation in which they are useful hasn't presented yet,

Self defense has been a cornerstone of my overall argument this entire time. I included reasoning, logic, links to statistics, and anecdotes supporting this. Do you have trouble reading, or are you just ignoring it all?

they are still meant to kill and hurt. They are a threat by nature,

Alcohol and tobacco are a threat by nature (also things I have mentioned before), and yet they are billion dollar industries that kill thousands and thousands of people every single year.

unlike a car which kills only if misused.

Are we still talking about cars? Mother of god I thought we were over this already. If they are so fundamentally different as to be incomparable then why do you keep comparing them?

So, I go back at a previous point of mine. Why stop at guns? Let's allow free use of personal mines, rocket launchers and grenades too. I bet some people would enjoy using them without killing anybody for the sake of watching the explosions, or to blow rocks up or whatever. What's more important, some wacko having fun with tools meant to kill, or the possibility of them being used for what they were created for against innocent people?

So you didn't read my last post? I flat out said that RPGs, grenades and other explosive devices are completely legal. You can own an RPG. That is a thing that you can do in America. Yet somehow there is no rocket launcher crime. Funny, that.

All right! I got one person that is with me on keeping bombs legal, and hopefully pushing for the right to own 'higher capacity' bombs. I mean, every incident I can think of where a bad guy had a bomb could have been stopped by a good guy with a bomb.

Slippery slope fallacy

Imagine all the robberies that would be prevented if every citizen had a rocket launcher.

See above.

[ncc]

Look... Its simple. Americans DO NOT have a minority report. Therefore you cannot predict in any sense whatsoever what the next day will bring. But common sense usually prevails (even in America) that if you put a lot of safety measures in place you can be safe from danger.

Well you see, in America we believe that people should be able to decide things for themselves, and so unlike in some kind of smooth plastic Utopian hellhole with no evil or sharp edges that you for some reason believe is possible, we hold these neat things called 'rights' in relatively high regard. The amount of good a thing will do has to be measured against the level that it impedes on the freedoms of people. Every solution you want to the 'gun problem' degrades the quality of life for millions and millions of citizens, endangers their ability to keep the government in check (which is a cornerstone of the nation's founding), and all for the extremely remote possibility that a few dozen less people will die each year.

The USA is a very strange country.

Straight roads for 800 miles.. Top speed limit 55mph. Why don't you bitch about your rights to drive your 200mph cars 200mph?
A mother of 3 could potentially drink illegally because she is under the age of 21. Why not complain that since being a mother she has every right to drink alcohol legally?
Why do you build nuclear weapons and never shoot them, costing your country billions/trillions of dollars?
Why do you call a drive way somewhere you park and a parkway somewhere you drive?

Where the hell am I going with this?

America doesn't always make sense. Your basically putting guns in the hands of potential maniacs. That maniac has no God given right to hold a gun, look at a gun or even watch an 18 movie with guns in it. The probability of him/her buying a gun because he knows like minded maniacs is generally quite high. Because you would only buy a gun if your neighbourhood by definition is a place you need firearm protection.

If I met an American and went into his/her house and saw a gun. I could find out in 2 minutes if its loaded. By coming round 3 or 4 times I could learn where your bullets are kept. After just a few visits I could shoot you with that gun. Because you have it. Now all I have to do is go to a school after you leave the house empty and shoot the shit out of every kid until the bullets run out. America is making it VERY VERY VERY EASY for me to do this. All I have to do is go into deep depression and sink a bottle of JD, snort some coke beforehand and the world is mine. I am now officially on the rampage with a powerful tool to kill innocents.. Then i'll take my own life.. I made headline news. I became a statistic. God BLESS America.

This entire post is an Anecdotal Fallacy. You are using isolated examples (the story example in the last paragraph especially) to try and make out America as a place where it is trivial to steal another person's gun, but there's no evidence in the form of hard facts presented to back any of it up. It's also a Begging the Question Fallacy. The conclusion that a gun will get stolen and will get used to shoot up a school is so imbedded in your mind that you're forming an example completely around your conslusion. In reality your story isn't very likely for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that most guns are kept out of sight in places such as a master bedroom, and usually in some sort of gun safe. Some people even go as far as to leave their weapons unloaded while in storage and lock their ammunition in a separate safe from the guns, if they even have any spare ammunition on hand at all.

[Lord Satori]

I'd hate to break it to you, ncc, but people stopped taking you seriously when you tried to prove your arguement by saying guns were made to "displace mass" and not kill.

edit: also, learn to recognise satire when you see it. I'd also like to point out that the last time alcohol was banned, mobs were formed and people resorted to guns. more harm came from banning alcohol than good.

[ncc]

I'd hate to break it to you, ncc, but people stopped taking you seriously when you tried to prove your arguement by saying guns were made to "displace mass" and not kill.

Apparently not, because people still feel the need to tell me that numbers lie and try to use lofty philosophy and wishful thinking to prove they have even a shred of a clue what the fuck is happening in a country they don't live in. I do totally believe the idea that everyone here is selectively latching on to a few small aspects of my much larger argument because they can't find an effective counter for any of the others though.

I myself have been pretty much glancing over your posts.

Good to know you've mentally checked out of this discussion. I can stop wasting my energy trying to teach you anything and ignore you from here on out, yeah?

[Skykid]

Well you see, in America we believe that people should be able to decide things for themselves

LMAO, you better move to a new country then.

ncc, all this belligerence isn't rubbing off on anyone. It might take a new kind of courage to doubt yourself momentarily, but I urge you to take a hiatus from all this statistical, patriotic, and not least Bill of Rights nonsense (the latter being even more worthless than the former) and try to determine why it is you're the only guy with his back against the wall and the vast majority keep nailing you to it.

Common sense prevails, seems to be your motto, so by that rationale you should be able to determine why your views are vastly outnumbered and all this spurious fact-finding hasn't made a dent in the moral stance of the majority you're preaching to.

Good luck in your journey of self-discovery, I hope you learn something about yourself.

[O. Van Bruce]

Imagine all the robberies that would be prevented if every citizen had a rocket launcher.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Pf9e-8sCY#t=35s

Fuck, that might have been TAS'd but it still gave me a headache. GOD DAMM IT WHEN BATRIDER WAS ON THE SCREEN.

[blackoak]

Thanks ncc for the assaultweapon.info and other links (haven't checked them all out yet). I have a gun enthusiast friend who has taken me shooting a couple times, and he mentioned the misleading nature/history of the term "assault weapon", but I never bothered to check up on it. That link was nice and succinct.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

guns are designed only to 'displace mass', oh lol

stupid people are such a treasure, they do such a wonderful job of making the rest of us glad we're not like them

[Ex-Cyber]

Top speed limit 55mph.

That hasn't been true for 20+ years.

[Ed Oscuro]

lol typical gun control argument

Guy: Here are a bunch of arguments
Other guys: hey look at this single one that's problematic, let's just ignore everything else

That goes for people on both sides of this issue, btw (although I think the gun rights crowd is slightly more apt to focus on trivialities / improbable things).

Look... Its simple. Americans DO NOT have a minority report. Therefore you cannot predict in any sense whatsoever what the next day will bring. But common sense usually prevails (even in America) that if you put a lot of safety measures in place you can be safe from danger.

This fact alone doesn't augur especially well for either side. I think it takes us back to the question of who gets to decide what the "safety measures" are, and when they will be enforced.

Although you write carelessly when you say "you cannot predict in any sense whatsoever what the next day will bring" - OK, Mr. David Hume! It's just a constant correlation of what happens (or is going to happen) with the inferences we draw (or, in the case of prediction, "common sense" which is nothing if it cannot rely on prediction, but thankfully it does).